Vermont Structural Steel Corp. v. Brickman, 27-72
| Decision Date | 06 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 27-72,27-72 |
| Citation | 300 A.2d 629,131 Vt. 144 |
| Parties | VERMONT STRUCTURAL STEEL CORPORATION v. Herbert BRICKMAN and Joyce Brickman. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Wick, Dinse & Allen, Burlington, for plaintiff.
Robert J. Kurrle, Montpelier, for defendant.
Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.
This is an action to enforce a mechanic's lien under 9 V.S.A. § 1924. The plaintiff claims a balance due on kitchen equipment and appliances supplied by the plaintiff under a written contract for installation in the defendant's home in Colchester. Defendants' answer admitted the lien but denied the debt and included a claim in setoff. Trial in July 1966 resulted adversely to the plaintiff but, upon its appeal to this Court, judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for retrial. See 126 Vt. 520, 236 A.2d 658.
The case is here after retrial on appeal by the defendants from the judgment for the plaintiff to recover the 'amount of $3081.38 less $486.20, with interest from the date of the writ at six percent and costs.' The order also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.
The plaintiff's business is designing kitchens and the furnishing of materials and appliances for them. The contract entered into by the parties was for the plaintiff to furnish the defendants with a 'custom Kitchen' at an agreed price of $4717.58 on which the defendants made a down payment of $1580.00. Installation was not included in the contract. The defendants' counterclaim pertained to specific defects in the plaintiff's performance of the contract.
Defendant's first claim of error is that the plaintiff failed to perform the contract and, because of its nonperformance, is not entitled to damages. They claim that the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff has no basis in fact to be sustained.
The plaintiff claims it substantially performed the contract. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove such performance and even though there was a failure in some minor particulars, the contract price may be recovered less a fair allowance to make good the defects. See the previous Brickman opinion, 126 Vt. 523, 236 A.2d 658.
The defendants argue in their brief that the transcript of the evidence on retrial 'indicates without question that there was, in fact, a non-performance (sic) of the contract.' They refer to facts which are 'gleaned from the trial transcript' relating to certain alleged defects which are claimed to exist. It is only by such general statements that the defendants argue support of their claim of nonperformance by the plaintiff. They have not challenged or briefed any exceptions to specific findings of fact made by the trial court or to its failure to find as requested.
'Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.' V.R.C.P. 52. See also Leno v. Meunier, 125 Vt. 30, 34, 209 A.2d 485 (1965).
The findings of the court clearly establish substantial performance by the plaintiff of its contract entered into with the defendants. The only exception, or shortage, found by the court in this respect was that the wrong front door for the dishwasher was delivered and a new one had not been delivered; also that an electric kitchen clock was delivered in a damaged condition.
Our reading of the transcript indicates that the evidence was controverted as to the other items set forth in defendants' counterclaim. On review, the fact that the evidence is conflicting cannot avail the excepting party. Barr's Estate v. Guay, 127 Vt. 374, 379, 250 A.2d 512 (1969). In respect to such items the defendants failed to sustain their burden of proof as required by the prior Brickman opinion 126 Vt. at page 534, 236 A.2d 658.
The evidence also indicates with reference to the contract price that the defendants have received a real and actual benefit from the work, materials, and appliances supplied by the plaintiff.
The record convinces us that the findings are not 'clearly erroneous' as provided by V.R.C.P. 52, but are fairly and reasonably supported by credible evidence and must stand. Stearns v. Stearns, 129 Vt. 264, 265, 276 A.2d 494 (1971). Defendants' exception is not sustained.
The appellants' second assignment of error is to that part of the amended judgment order which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Michael F. Montagne
...in default until payment is demanded or until suit is brought, which is a judicial demand. Vermont Structural Steel Corp. v. Brickman, 131 Vt. 144, 147, 300 A.2d 629, 631 (Vt.1973) (citations omitted). Interest is to be paid from the time that the debt becomes Id. (citing Vermont & Canada R......
-
Bookstaver v. Town of Westminster, 33-72
... ... No. 33-72 ... Supreme Court of Vermont ... Feb. 6, 1973 ... [131 Vt ... ...
-
Wells v. Village of Orleans, Inc., 98-73
...(1973). This standard is sometimes stated as 'fairly and reasonably supported by credible evidence.' Vermont Structural Steel Corp. v. Brickman, 131 Vt. 144, 147, 300 A.2d 629, 631 (1973). The sufficiency of the findings in the case at bar must be judged by the foregoing Assumption of risk ......
-
Newport Sand and Gravel Co. v. Miller Concrete Const., Inc.
...54(a), 1981 amendment. See VanVelsor v. Dzewaltowski, 136 Vt. 103, 106, 385 A.2d 1102, 1104 (1978); Vermont Structural Steel Corp. v. Brickman, 131 Vt. 144, 147, 300 A.2d 629, 631 (1973). Interest ordinarily runs from the time of maturity or demand for payment or the time of default, which ......