Snow-White Roofs, Inc. v. Boucher, SNOW-WHITE

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana
• Writing for the Court: SAMUEL
• Citation: Snow-White Roofs, Inc. v. Boucher, 182 So.2d 846 (La. App. 1966)
• Decision Date: 07 February 1966
• Docket Number: SNOW-WHITE,No. 2020,2020
• Parties: ROOFS, INC. v. Frank BOUCHER and Robert Coppage.

Page 846

182 So.2d 846

SNOW-WHITE ROOFS, INC. v. Frank BOUCHER and Robert Coppage.

No. 2020.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1966.

Daniel A. McGovern, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Mollere & Zaccaria, Metairie, Charles F. Barbera, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before McBRIDE, SAMUEL and CHASEZ, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

This is a suit on a written contract for work on the roof of a residence. Plaintiff is the contractor. Defendants are the owner of the residence and that owner's agent. The suit is for $280, the contract price, reasonable attorney's fees as stipulated in the contract, and recognition of plaintiff's lien and privilege on the property. Defendants' answer admits the contract, denies liability thereon, and alternatively prays for a $165 reduction in the price, averring that the contract included the repairing of leaks in the roof, which work plaintiff had not done, and that the sum of $165 had been paid to another contractor for those repairs.

There was judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff in the full amount as prayed, but subject to a $165 credit in favor of defendants, and in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $50 as an attorney's fee; the judgment cast the defendants for all costs. Plaintiff has appealed. Defendants have answered the appeal seeking a reversal of the judgment only as to those portions thereof which assess all costs in the trial court against the defendants and award plaintiff the attorney's fee.

The fact that in performing its work under the contract plaintiff did 'snow white' the roof (a process discussed later in this opinion) and did not repair the leaks is undisputed. The appeal is based on plaintiff's contention that under the terms of the contract it was not obligated to repair leaks in the roof, that the contract must be enforced as written and that the trial judge was in error in admitting parol evidence which had the effect of placing plaintiff under that added obligation. Plaintiff had made timely objections to that evidence.

Under our Civil Code and jurisprudence parol evidence cannot be admitted against or beyond what is contained in a written contract; such evidence is inadmissible to vary, alter or add to the contract's terms. LSA-C.C. Art. 2276; Dufrene v. Tracy, 232 La. 386, 94 So.2d 297; Rosenthal v. Cauthier, 224 La. 341, 69 So.2d 367; Reuter v. Reuter's Succession, 206 La. 474, 19 So .2d 209. However, where there are ambiguities in a written contract, parol evidence is admissible to clarify those ambiguities by showing the intention of the parties. See Rosenthal v. Gauthier, supra; Rudman v. Dupuis, 206 La. 1061, 20 So.2d 363; Holloway Gravel Co. v. McKowen, 200 La. 917, 9 So.2d 228.

The contract in the instant case is on one of plaintiff's printed forms. It does state that 'Snow-White is not a water proofing' and it does make reference to a plaintiff brochure which accompanied the contract. The brochure sets out the work to be done in connection with the 'Snow White Service'. The repair of roof leaks is not included as part of the work as set out in the brochure. There appears in handwriting (all unprinted portions of the contract are in handwriting) on the first page of the contract, immediately below the name of the defendant-agent and the address of the premises upon which the work was to be done, the phrase 'Residence to be Repaired and Snow White Coated'. The approximate area to be covered by the work is stated as being the 'Entire Roof Area'. The contract was signed by the defendant-agent, a realtor, and by a representative of the plaintiff.

The president of the plaintiff corporation, that party's only witness, testified relative to the purposes of 'snow whiting' a roof and that testimony appears to be consistent with the printed terms of the contract and brochure. His testimony was to the effect that the process beautifies, reduces the cost of air conditioning, and secures gravel on the type of roof here involved; it does not waterproof or repair leaks. However, this witness also testified that the plaintiff corporation occasionally did do other types of roofing work, including the repairing of leaks, when called for by the contract.

Clearly the contractual phase, 'Residence to be Repaired and Show White Coated', calls for more than the snow whiting process. The word 'Repaired' is in addition to that process and is ambiguous in that the type of...