Williams v. Meyer
| Decision Date | 25 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 6340,6340 |
| Citation | 629 S.W.2d 257 |
| Parties | Don WILLIAMS D/B/A Big Country Tree Company, Appellant, v. Larry MEYER, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is a suit on an oral contract. Plaintiff-Appellant Don Williams, doing business as Big Country Tree Company, brought this suit against Defendant-Appellee Larry Meyer to recover for services rendered pursuant to an alleged oral contract with Meyer whereby Williams agreed to perform landscape work on lakeside property owned by Meyer.
Trial was to a jury which found:
1. Contractor Williams substantially completed his obligations agreed upon in the oral contract with owner Meyer.
2. The reasonable value of the services performed for Meyer by Williams was $2800.00.
3. Reasonable attorney's fees incurred by Williams was $750.00.
4. The jury failed to find that the parties agreed that the $2,000.00 payment by Meyer to Williams would be in full payment for all work performed.
After verdict, Defendant-Appellee Meyer filed a motion to disregard the jury's answers to Special Issues Numbers 1, 2, and 3 as shown above, upon the ground that such issues were immaterial.
The trial court entered judgment that Plaintiff Williams take nothing against Defendant Meyer, reciting therein that Defendant's Motion to Disregard the jury's answers to Special Issues Numbers 1, 2, and 3 was sustained, and in addition thereto reciting that the court was entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
From this judgment Plaintiff Williams appeals upon the three points of error, to wit:
(1) and (2) The court erred in disregarding the jury's answers to Special Issues 1 and 3 for the stated reason that such findings have support in the evidence and are not immaterial issues, and
(3) the court erred in rendering judgment notwithstanding the verdict because a directed verdict would not have been proper. We sustain Appellant's points and reverse and remand the cause to the trial court for retrial, for the reasons hereinafter stated.
In April of 1980, Contractor Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Owner Meyer, Defendant-Appellee, entered into an oral contract by which Williams agreed to do certain landscaping work and brush-clearing services at Meyer's residence for an agreed contract price of $2800.00. It was undisputed that the work was to include clearing out the underbrush, taking out scrub trees, side-stripping the larger trees, painting the parts of trees where there were cuts (where limbs had been removed), removing stumps, rocks, and scrap building material, removing certain specified trees, and clearing a path to the lake. The crux of the dispute between the parties was whether or not under the terms of the contract, Williams also agreed to provide Meyer with a panoramic view of the lake by cutting the tops out of the trees which were situated between Meyer's house and the lake. Meyer contended and testified that this was part of the contract, whereas Williams contended and testified that the $2800.00 contract price did not include this topping of trees to provide a lake view. Williams testified that Meyer did not mention the desire for a panoramic lake view until well after the contract price of $2800.00 had been agreed upon and after the work agreed upon was well under way. This testimony last mentioned was disputed by the testimony of Meyer and his (Meyer's) then wife.
In other words, Meyer's argument is that Williams had not completed performance of the contract because of William's failure to provide the lake view, in support of which contention Meyer's expert witness testified that it would cost between $1,200.00 and $1,300.00 to give Meyer a "nice lake view."
As seen above, this case was submitted to the jury upon the theory of substantial performance. The jury in answer to Special Issue No. 1 found that Contractor Williams substantially performed the contract. It is well-settled in Texas that where a contractor seeks recovery under the equitable doctrine of substantial performance, the burden is upon such contractor to furnish evidence to properly measure the deductions allowable and necessary to remedy the defects and omissions. Stated differently, the amount recoverable by the contractor is the contract price less the reasonable cost of remedying the defects or omissions in such way as to make the contractor's performance conform to the contract. This deduction measures the damages allowed the owner for failure on the part of the contractor to fully comply with the contract. Atkinson v. Jackson Bros. (Comm.App.1925) 270 S.W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briercroft Service Corp. v. De Los Santos
...drawn therefrom, reasonably supports such findings. Lynch v. Ricketts, 158 Tex. 487, 314 S.W.2d 273 (1958); Williams v. Meyer, 629 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.--Waco 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION The FTC Rule (16 C.F.R. 433.2) provides, in pertinent part: Preservation of co......
-
Hernandez v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...issues which were endorsed as "Denied." Error was held not to be preserved when a judge responded, "I'll let you know at 1:15." Williams v. Meyers, 629 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.--Waco 1982, writ dism'd by agr.). The responses of the trial judge in this case did not constitute a ruling in complia......
-
Harbour v. Cogburn
...in 1976. 1 Several cases decided after the 1976 amendment, without discussing same, have held otherwise. See Williams v. Meyer, 629 S.W.2d 257 (Tex.App.--Waco 1982, writ granted); Hyder-Ingram Chevrolet, Inc. v. Kutach, 612 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1981, no writ); Reli......
-
Fee v. State
...By failing to get a ruling on his objection concerning corroboration, Fee waived the objection. Williams v. Meyer, 629 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.App.--Waco 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Trevino then continued his testimony in front of the jury. While appellant claims such testimony should have been ......