Sterling Projects, Inc. v. Fields

• Citation: 530 S.W.2d 602
• Decision Date: 23 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 5429,5429
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
• Parties: STERLING PROJECTS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. F. D. FIELDS and Ward Thomas, Individually and d/b/a Fields & Thomas Construction Company, Appellees.

Page 602

530 S.W.2d 602

STERLING PROJECTS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. F. D. FIELDS and Ward Thomas, Individually and d/b/a Fields & Thomas Construction Company, Appellees.

No. 5429.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Waco.

Oct. 23, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1975.

John B. McNamara, Waco, for appellants.

B. N. Hamilton, Waco, for appellees.

OPINION

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This suit grows out of a carpentry subcontract on a 250 unit housing project. Plaintiffs Fields and Thomas were the carpentry subcontractors. Defendant Sterling Projects was general contractor, and defendant Industrial Indemnity had executed performance bond for Sterling.

Sterling fired plaintiffs off the job before plaintiffs completed their work. Plaintiffs sued Sterling (and its bondsman) for damages for wrongful breach of plaintiffs' subcontract; additionally sought special damages to their business reputation and credit resulting from the wrongful breach; and pay for extra work and payments made to idle employees.

Defendants answered by general denial, asserted plaintiffs failed to perform according to contract, and by cross action sought damages for excess cost in completing the contract.

Trial was to a jury which found:

1) At time of their discharge plaintiffs had substantially performed their subcontract.

5) Sterling acted without just cause in discharging plaintiffs.

6) Such discharge resulted in damages to plaintiffs' business reputation.

7) At the time the subcontract was entered, Sterling should have reasonably known that a wrongful discharge would result in damages to plaintiffs' business reputation.

8) $20,000 will reasonably compensate plaintiffs for damage to their business reputation, proximately resulting from the discharge without cause.

9) Such discharge resulted in damages to plaintiffs' credit standing.

10) At the time the subcontract was executed Sterling should have reasonably anticipated that a discharge without just cause would result in damage to plaintiffs' credit.

11) $10,000 will reasonably compensate plaintiffs for damages to their credit resulting from their discharge without just cause.

12) Plaintiffs performed 10 items of extra work.

13) Sterling ordered plaintiffs to perform such extra work.

14) Sterling accepted the benefits of such extra work.

15) $4755.15 is the reasonable value of such extra work.

16) Studs and other lumber on certain buildings were damaged by exposure to the weather.

17) Sterling failed to properly supervise the concrete subcontractor in pouring porches on such buildings.

18) Such failure resulted in weather damage to the studs and other lumber.

19) $1500. was the reasonable cost to repair and replace such damage.

20) Sterling failed to supply plaintiff with sufficient materials to perform labor required by the carpentry subcontract.

21) Sterling failed to exercise reasonable care to supervise the job performance of the concrete subcontractor.

22) Such failure proximately resulted in plaintiffs making payment to its employees who were substantially idle.

23) At the time the carpentry subcontract was entered Sterling should have reasonably known that a failure to furnish adequate materials and to properly supervise the concrete subcontractor, would result in additional labor expense to plaintiff.

24) Plaintiffs acted as a reasonable and prudent subcontractor in making such payments to their employees.

25) $7500. was the reasonable cost to plaintiffs in making such payments to their employees.

28) Plaintiffs did not fail to cooperate with the general contractor is scheduling its work so as to avoid conflict with the work of others.

32) Plaintiffs did not fail to perform good quality work.

34) Plaintiffs did not fail to properly man the job with sufficient personnel.

36) Plaintiffs did not constructively abandon its contract by failing to properly man the job with sufficient personnel.

The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict for plaintiffs against both defendants for $64,995.87 ($21,240.72 for breach of contract; $20,000. damage to plaintiffs business reputation; $10,000. damage to plaintiffs' credit; $4755.15 for extra work; $1500 repair of weather damages; $7500. labor expense to idle employees).

Defendants appeal on 29 points contending:

1) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for $20,000. damage to plaintiffs' business reputation, and $10,000. damage to plaintiffs' credit, because such items are not recoverable as actual damages for breach of contract; and because there is no evidence and factually insufficient evidence of such items of damage.

2) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for the $4755.15 extra work performed because plaintiffs did not comply with the contractual requirements necessary to be entitled to payment for such; and such is not recoverable in suit for breach of contract.

3) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for the $1500. damage for plaintiffs repairing and replacing studs and lumber exposed to weather due to failure of defendant to properly supervise performance of the concrete subcontractor, because plaintiffs failed to comply with specific contractual requirements to be entitled to such claim; and there is no evidence and factually insufficient evidence to support such findings.

4) The trial court erred in rendering judgment for the $7500. payments made by plaintiffs to idle employees, because plaintiffs failed to comply with specific contractual requirements to be entitled to such claim; there is no finding such employees were substantially idle; and there is no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the findings upon which same is based.

5) The trial court erred in rendering judgment against the surety company on all items except the $21,240.72 awarded against defendant Sterling for breach of contract.

Defendants make no complaint of the finding that Sterling wrongfully fired plaintiffs from the job, or of the award of $21,240.72 damages for such breach of contract. Plaintiffs concede contention 5, supra, is correct, and that judgment against the surety company should be limited to the sum of $21,240.72.

Contention 1 asserts, among other matters, that damages to credit and reputation are not recoverable items of actual damages for breach of contract.

Actual damages are either general or special. The term 'general damages' is applied to loss, damage or injury which is conclusively presumed to have been foreseen or contemplated by the party as a consequence of his breach of contract or...