Pellegrini v. Radiant Society

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Pellegrini v. Radiant Society

31 A.2d 551, 347 Pa. 21, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 388

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 25, 1943

DocketAppeal, 62

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.2d 551 (Pellegrini v. Radiant Society) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pellegrini v. Radiant Society, 31 A.2d 551, 347 Pa. 21, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 388 (Pa. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff, an architect, sued for services rendered pursuant to a written contract entitling him to “. . . a fee of six (6) per cent of the cost of the work . . .” in the construction of a hall for defendant society. There was evidence to show performance; that the low bid was |77,659.00; that at defendant’s request he revised the plans pursuant to which the hall could have been constructed for f57,557; that the defendant declined to go on. *

*22 The defense appears to have been that the “plaintiff stated to the defendant’s officers and members of the building committee that the cost of the proposed structure would not exceed $50,000, according to his plans and specifications, when plaintiff knew such fact to be false, and the defendant believed and relied upon such representation and executed said contract.”

Defendant failed to lay grounds by evidence clear, precise and indubitable (see Broida v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 316 Pa. 444, 447, 175 A. 492) for the reformation of the contract and the case was submitted to the jury on the theory, then apparently acceptable to both sides, that plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for all or nothing. The jury was instructed to deduct an item “of $5,800.00 for bowling alleys” from the $77,659. The verdict was at the rate of 6% on $71,859 less $1,300 paid on account, and with interest. The court reduced the verdict by $500 with interest on the ground that there was evidence that the value of services which would have been rendered by the architect if the project had not been abandoned was about $500. Both actions were favorable to defendant.

In this court defendant’s counsel stated that he could not object to a judgment based on an assumed cost of the work of $57,557. It now complains that a new trial was refused and that the jury was instructed that if a verdict for plaintiff was found, the base on which his fee should be calculated would be $71,859 instead of $57,557. The court doubtless made the distinction because defendant admitted “. . . that $77,659 was the reasonable estimated cost of the building, based upon the plans, drawings, specifications and details prepared for the defendant, . . .” There is no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Defendant offered in evidence “. . . tbe following excerpt from tbe regular meeting of tbe Radiant Society beld on November 8,1936: *22 After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Leczynski moved that the building committee be dissolved and for the time being to forget about the building. Motion passes. Twenty-eight votes for and three against.”

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

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff, an architect, sued for services rendered pursuant to a written contract entitling him to “. . . a fee of six (6) per cent of the cost of the work . . .” in the construction of a hall for defendant society. There was evidence to show performance; that the low bid was |77,659.00; that at defendant’s request he revised the plans pursuant to which the hall could have been constructed for f57,557; that the defendant declined to go on. *

*22 The defense appears to have been that the “plaintiff stated to the defendant’s officers and members of the building committee that the cost of the proposed structure would not exceed $50,000, according to his plans and specifications, when plaintiff knew such fact to be false, and the defendant believed and relied upon such representation and executed said contract.”

Defendant failed to lay grounds by evidence clear, precise and indubitable (see Broida v. Traveler’s Ins. Co., 316 Pa. 444, 447, 175 A. 492) for the reformation of the contract and the case was submitted to the jury on the theory, then apparently acceptable to both sides, that plaintiff was entitled to a verdict for all or nothing. The jury was instructed to deduct an item “of $5,800.00 for bowling alleys” from the $77,659. The verdict was at the rate of 6% on $71,859 less $1,300 paid on account, and with interest. The court reduced the verdict by $500 with interest on the ground that there was evidence that the value of services which would have been rendered by the architect if the project had not been abandoned was about $500. Both actions were favorable to defendant.

In this court defendant’s counsel stated that he could not object to a judgment based on an assumed cost of the work of $57,557. It now complains that a new trial was refused and that the jury was instructed that if a verdict for plaintiff was found, the base on which his fee should be calculated would be $71,859 instead of $57,557. The court doubtless made the distinction because defendant admitted “. . . that $77,659 was the reasonable estimated cost of the building, based upon the plans, drawings, specifications and details prepared for the defendant, . . .” There is no reversible error.

Judgment affirmed.

*

Defendant offered in evidence “. . . tbe following excerpt from tbe regular meeting of tbe Radiant Society beld on November 8,1936: *22 After a lengthy discussion, Mr. Leczynski moved that the building committee be dissolved and for the time being to forget about the building. Motion passes. Twenty-eight votes for and three against.”

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.2d 551, 347 Pa. 21, 1943 Pa. LEXIS 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pellegrini-v-radiant-society-pa-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack