Wilson v. Eastern Elec. & Heating, Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 August 1988
• Docket Number: 1987,No. 209,209
• Citation: 550 A.2d 35
• Parties: Shirley WILSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. EASTERN ELECTRIC & HEATING, INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 35

550 A.2d 35

Shirley WILSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. EASTERN ELECTRIC & HEATING, INC., Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 209, 1987.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Aug. 23, 1988.

Decided: Oct. 4, 1988.

Superior Court, New Castle County.

AFFIRMED.

Before MOORE, WALSH and HOLLAND, Justices.

ORDER

WALSH, Justice.

This 4th day of October, 1988, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record, it appears to the Court that:

(1) This case arises from an oral contract for certain construction-related services and materials. The appellant, Shirley Wilson ("Wilson") disputes the claim of Eastern Electric and Heating, Inc. ("Eastern") for the balance allegedly due under the construction contract.

(2) Eastern originally commenced this action in the Justice of the Peace Court No. 12 (C.A. No. JP12-84-C-2380) where Wilson appeared pro se. On November 28, 1984, the Justice of the Peace Court entered judgment against Wilson and in favor of Eastern for the sum of $1,860.00 plus court costs. Wilson appealed and secured a trial de novo in the Superior Court. The case went to arbitration pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 16(c) and resulted in an arbitrator's award in favor of Eastern in the amount of $1,860.63. Wilson's counterclaim against Eastern was also denied.

(3) In the Superior Court, the case was tried before a judge without a jury. Wilson again appeared pro se. The trial judge found that the parties had reached a valid compromise based on a writing evidencing the agreed amount of $1,860.86 signed by both parties. The trial judge entered judgment in favor of Eastern in the amount of $1,860.86, later reduced to $1,850.00 the amount originally sought by Eastern in the Justice of the Peace Court. Wilson brings this appeal raising four arguments.

(4) Wilson's first argument concerns the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conclusion of law reached by the Superior Court regarding the intent of the parties to create an accord. Intent of the parties is a fact question. Our review of factual findings is limited, and we will not overturn findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Levitt v. Bouvier, Del.Supr., 287 A.2d 671, 673 (1972). We have reviewed the present record and hold that the findings of fact made by the Superior Court are clearly supportable. We therefore find Wilson's first argument regarding sufficiency of the evidence without merit.

(5) Wilson's second argument concerns the standard applied by the Superior Court to determine whether a valid accord was reached between the parties. The law regarding the creation of an accord turns on the question whether the parties have reached an agreement to accept something new and different from what one of the parties claims to have been originally entitled to receive. Allied Builders, Inc. v. Heffron, Del.Supr., 397 A.2d 550, 552 (1979). The Superior Court ruling conforms to that standard and is not legally erroneous.

(6) Wilson...