John H. Barrett, Inc. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

John H. Barrett, Inc. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc.

324 N.E.2d 909, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 747

DecidedMarch 27, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 324 N.E.2d 909 (John H. Barrett, Inc. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John H. Barrett, Inc. v. Joseph Rugo, Inc., 324 N.E.2d 909, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 747 (Mass. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

1. As we read the master’s subsidiary findings (see Wormstead v. Town Manager of Saugus, 366 Mass. 659, 660-661 [1975]), the •rain water leader was properly constructed by the plaintiff but subsequently became clogged without fault on the plaintiff’s part. As the plaintiff was under no contractual obligation to repair the subsequent damage to its work, Rugo, by ordering the plaintiff to perform the necessary remedial work, became liable for the fair and reasonable value of that work when it was completed. Compare McGovern v. Salem, 214 Mass. 358, 362 (1913); M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Constr. Inc. 348 Mass. 682, 684-686 (1965). It mattered not that the master was unable to identify the person who had actually damaged the work. 2. The plaintiff’s recovery on “Pool-Item 2” was justified on the ground that the plaintiff and Rugo composed their dispute as to the controlling contractual provisions by Rugo’s agreeing to pay the plaintiff (“submit all invoices to this office”) for the remedial work [727]*727which Rugo ordered the plaintiff to (and which it did) perform. Compare McGovern v. Salem, 214 Mass. 358, 362-363 (1913). See also Metro Insulation Corp. v. Leventhal, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 213, 218 (1973).

Peter J. Gagne (Sally A. Corwin with him) for the plaintiff. Philip M. Cronin, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1. As we read the master’s subsidiary findings (see Wormstead v. Town Manager of Saugus, 366 Mass. 659, 660-661 [1975]), the •rain water leader was properly constructed by the plaintiff but subsequently became clogged without fault on the plaintiff’s part. As the plaintiff was under no contractual obligation to repair the subsequent damage to its work, Rugo, by ordering the plaintiff to perform the necessary remedial work, became liable for the fair and reasonable value of that work when it was completed. Compare McGovern v. Salem, 214 Mass. 358, 362 (1913); M. L. Shalloo, Inc. v. Ricciardi & Sons Constr. Inc. 348 Mass. 682, 684-686 (1965). It mattered not that the master was unable to identify the person who had actually damaged the work. 2. The plaintiff’s recovery on “Pool-Item 2” was justified on the ground that the plaintiff and Rugo composed their dispute as to the controlling contractual provisions by Rugo’s agreeing to pay the plaintiff (“submit all invoices to this office”) for the remedial work [727]*727which Rugo ordered the plaintiff to (and which it did) perform. Compare McGovern v. Salem, 214 Mass. 358, 362-363 (1913). See also Metro Insulation Corp. v. Leventhal, 1 Mass. App. Ct. 213, 218 (1973).

Peter J. Gagne (Sally A. Corwin with him) for the plaintiff. Philip M. Cronin, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.E.2d 909, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 1975 Mass. App. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-h-barrett-inc-v-joseph-rugo-inc-massappct-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack