Harding v. Coleman
This text of 407 So. 2d 459 (Harding v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant appealed from a judgment awarding damages for the breach of a building contract.
The issue on appeal is the admissibility of evidence of the subsequent sale of the building and lot by the plaintiff and the alleged unjust enrichment of plaintiff.
We affirm.
On a prior appeal,1 this court remanded “for the narrow purpose of receiving evidence concerning the cost of repairing the defects.... ” The finding of a defective performance on the part of the defendant was affirmed in that judgment.
In addition to evidence on the “cost to repair,” the defendant proffered the certified copy of a sale of the lot and building, subsequent to the first trial, together with proffered testimony that $110,000.00 of the price was for the building. He wanted to show that since the cost of the building was $29,000.00, plaintiff has suffered no loss. The trial judge held that the evidence on proffer was irrelevant and that the plaintiff was entitled to $14,300.00 subject to an offset of $6,372.00 still owed on the contract.
The defendant argues that the evidence on proffer was admissible and that the trial court should have proceeded in equity under Louisiana Civil Code Article 21.2 He further argues for application of the equitable actio de in rem verso provided for in Louisiana Civil Code Article 1965.3
The trial court correctly denied the introduction of evidence on the new issues. The proffered evidence was beyond the scope of the order on remand. Collins v. Slocum, 317 So.2d 672 (3rd Cir. 1975), writ denied 321 So.2d 362, 363, 364 (La.1975).
For these reasons, the judgment is affirmed at the cost of the defendant.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
407 So. 2d 459, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 5515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harding-v-coleman-lactapp-1981.