Vogell v. Schneider

537 A.2d 595, 1988 Me. LEXIS 50
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedFebruary 18, 1988
StatusPublished

This text of 537 A.2d 595 (Vogell v. Schneider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vogell v. Schneider, 537 A.2d 595, 1988 Me. LEXIS 50 (Me. 1988).

Opinion

NICHOLS, Justice.

The Defendants, Daniel H. Schneider and Diane C. Schneider, appeal from a judgment of Superior Court (Hancock County) affirming the District Court’s award of damages to the Plaintiff, E. Scott Vogell, against the Defendants in a breach of contract action arising out of the renovation of the Defendants’ home at Castine.

The Defendants contend that the District Court committed reversible error by granting the Plaintiff damages based in quantum meruit because in his complaint the Plaintiff did not seek such remedy. The Plaintiff responds that the District Court properly found that there was an implied contract for time and labor between the Defendants and himself, and that it was the breach of this contract that gave rise to the award of damages.

We affirm the judgment below.

There was no clear error in the District Court’s finding that the contract between the parties was not a fixed-price agreement but was, instead, a contract for costs incurred by the Plaintiff while renovating the Defendants’ home. See Norris v. School District No. 1, 12 Me. 293, 296 (1835). Moreover, the District Court’s award of damages for breach of contrct based upon the Plaintiff’s testimony and the bills for labor and materials that were admitted into evidence at the trial had competent support in the record. It will, therefore, not be disturbed. Bourette v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 481 A.2d 170, 174 (Me.1984); Jamshidi v. Bowden, 360 A.2d 522, 524 (Me.1976). The fact that the District Court may have inartfully couched its judgment in the language of equity does not alter our conclusion.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

Related

Bourette v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
481 A.2d 170 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1984)
Rand v. B. G. Pride Realty
360 A.2d 519 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1976)
Norris v. School District No. 1
12 Me. 293 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1835)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
537 A.2d 595, 1988 Me. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vogell-v-schneider-me-1988.