MacAlister v. Thomas

Massachusetts Appeals Court

MacAlister v. Thomas

5 Mass. App. Ct. 798

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 Mass. App. Ct. 798 (MacAlister v. Thomas) 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

MacAlister v. Thomas, 5 Mass. App. Ct. 798 (Mass. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

The contention of the defendant (Thomas) that the recovery by the plaintiff, MacAlister (the builder), in his action for breach of a construction contract should be offset by the value of various elements of damage to Thomas, evidence of which the trial judge excluded (or in the alternative that Thomas should be given a new trial at which the value of those elements could be introduced), was vitiated by the jury’s verdicts on the builder’s claims and on Thomas’ counterclaim for breach of the same contract. (See Mass.R.Civ.P. 13, 365 Mass. 758 [1974].) The jury found for the builder on his claim for breach of contract (as well as on a quantum meruit); similarly, the jury found for the builder on Thomas’ counterclaim (rather than for Thomas in a nominal amount; see White Spot Constr. Corp. v. Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. 344 Mass. 632, 636 [1962]; Three-Seventy Leasing Corp. v. Ampex Corp. 528 F. 2d 993, 998 [5th Cir. 1976]). Thus, the jury having found that there was no breach of contract by the builder, Thomas was not entitled to damages in any amount; and the exclusion of the offered testimony became immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The contention of the defendant (Thomas) that the recovery by the plaintiff, MacAlister (the builder), in his action for breach of a construction contract should be offset by the value of various elements of damage to Thomas, evidence of which the trial judge excluded (or in the alternative that Thomas should be given a new trial at which the value of those elements could be introduced), was vitiated by the jury’s verdicts on the builder’s claims and on Thomas’ counterclaim for breach of the same contract. (See Mass.R.Civ.P. 13, 365 Mass. 758 [1974].) The jury found for the builder on his claim for breach of contract (as well as on a quantum meruit); similarly, the jury found for the builder on Thomas’ counterclaim (rather than for Thomas in a nominal amount; see White Spot Constr. Corp. v. Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. 344 Mass. 632, 636 [1962]; Three-Seventy Leasing Corp. v. Ampex Corp. 528 F. 2d 993, 998 [5th Cir. 1976]). Thus, the jury having found that there was no breach of contract by the builder, Thomas was not entitled to damages in any amount; and the exclusion of the offered testimony became immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Mass. App. Ct. 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macalister-v-thomas-massappct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack