Beaudoin v. Lenza
This text of 156 N.E.2d 682 (Beaudoin v. Lenza) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order for judgment affirmed. The defendant, by an oral contract, engaged the plaintiff, a building contractor, to make certain extensive alterations on his property, payment to be made in accordance with biweekly bills computed on a cost plus basis. Upon default in payment, the plaintiff refused to continue with the work, and sues upon the same cause of action in three counts: one under G. L. c. 231, § 147, for work done and materials furnished, one under G. L. c. 231, § 7, on an account annexed, and one specifically in quantum meruit. An auditor found the identical sum to be recoverable under each of the three counts. We need not differentiate among them; the defendant having defaulted in payment without justifiable cause, the plaintiff was warranted in refusing to continue the work, Williston on Contracts (Rev. ed.) § 848, and may maintain an action to recover the fair value of the work done and materials supplied. Fitzgerald v. Allen, 128 Mass. 232, 234. Ford v. Burchard, 130 Mass. 424, 426. Monast v. Brodeur, 329 Mass. 767.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 N.E.2d 682, 338 Mass. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beaudoin-v-lenza-mass-1959.