Redden v. Richmond

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Redden v. Richmond

590 P.2d 798, 38 Or. App. 429, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2462

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

DocketTC 24445, CA 10500

StatusPublished

This text of 590 P.2d 798 (Redden v. Richmond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Redden v. Richmond, 590 P.2d 798, 38 Or. App. 429, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2462 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages for breach of a contract between the purchasers and seller of a house. Under the contract the defendant, as the seller, agreed to complete work on a bedroom and bathroom of the house to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendant failed to complete the work in various respects and that they were damaged as a result. The case was tried before the court, without a jury. Defendant appeals from a judgment of $1,198.70, plus attorney fees and costs.

Defendant contends on this appeal that plaintiffs’ rejection of defendant’s performance was not reasonable. This being an action at law, we must affirm the trial court in its finding to the contrary if there was any competent evidence to support such a finding. We find, upon examination of the record, that there was such evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to describe or summarize that evidence.

Defendant also contends that plaintiffs should have granted him an opportunity to correct any deficiencies in performance before plaintiffs brought an action for breach of contract. Defendant does not cite any authority in support of such a proposition, as applied to a case such as this, and we find none.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for damages for breach of a contract between the purchasers and seller of a house. Under the contract the defendant, as the seller, agreed to complete work on a bedroom and bathroom of the house to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that defendant failed to complete the work in various respects and that they were damaged as a result. The case was tried before the court, without a jury. Defendant appeals from a judgment of $1,198.70, plus attorney fees and costs.

Defendant contends on this appeal that plaintiffs’ rejection of defendant’s performance was not reasonable. This being an action at law, we must affirm the trial court in its finding to the contrary if there was any competent evidence to support such a finding. We find, upon examination of the record, that there was such evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to describe or summarize that evidence.

Defendant also contends that plaintiffs should have granted him an opportunity to correct any deficiencies in performance before plaintiffs brought an action for breach of contract. Defendant does not cite any authority in support of such a proposition, as applied to a case such as this, and we find none.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 P.2d 798, 38 Or. App. 429, 1979 Ore. App. LEXIS 2462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redden-v-richmond-orctapp-1979.