White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Krasnoff

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Krasnoff

227 S.E.2d 82, 138 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1976

Docket52107

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 227 S.E.2d 82 (White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Krasnoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Krasnoff, 227 S.E.2d 82, 138 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

1. "Where a contract has been broken, the law seeks to give such damages as will put the injured party in the same position as if the contract had been kept; subject, however, to the exception that damages which are speculative, consequential, or of a nature not reasonably within the contemplation of both parties as a natural and probable result of a breach, are not recoverable. Where a builder agrees to erect a building within a certain time, knowing that it has been leased from the time named for its completion, and breaks the stipulation as to time, he is ordinarily liable to the owner for loss of rent...” Albany Phosphate Co. v. Hugger Bros., 4 Ga. App. 771 (3, 3a) (62 SE 533). See also Concrete Materials v. Smith & Plaster Co., 127 Ga. App. 817 (195 SE2d 219).

2. The trial court did not err in rendering a judgment against defendant contractor for loss of rentals. The [614]*614evidence shows that there was a contract to repair plaintiff’s apartment building followed by an accord and satisfaction thereof which contained a warranty. The rent loss was traceable to defendant’s breach of the latter agreement.

Submitted April 6, 1976 Decided April 23, 1976 Rehearing denied May 12, 1976. Bailey & Shumaker, Kirby G. Bailey, for appellant. Flemister, Beasley, Baird & Slotin, James L. Flemister, for appellees.

3. The five apartments which defendant contracted to repair collectively rented for $1,090 per month. The expense of utilities (which was to be paid by plaintiff as landlord) was $70 monthly per apartment. The apartments were not rented for two months due to defendant’s breach of the contract.

The trial court determined the loss of rent to be $2,110 (the rental income for two months "minus the cost of utilities” (R. 14)) and entered judgment for that amount. The judgment is slightly excessive by reason of a miscalculation. Such mathematical error is understandable in view of the complex nature of the claims presented during a two-day non-jury trial dealing with disputed items involved in a $51,968.86 contract for repairing fire damage to buildings. The cost of the utilities for the five apartments over a two month period was $700. (The trial court¹mistakenly determined that the monthly expense of utilities for the five apartments was $70). Thus, the proper computation of damages for the rentals loss was $2,180 less $700, or $1,480.

Judgment affirmed on condition that the amount in excess of $1,480 be written off; otherwise reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

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

Clark, Judge.

1. "Where a contract has been broken, the law seeks to give such damages as will put the injured party in the same position as if the contract had been kept; subject, however, to the exception that damages which are speculative, consequential, or of a nature not reasonably within the contemplation of both parties as a natural and probable result of a breach, are not recoverable. Where a builder agrees to erect a building within a certain time, knowing that it has been leased from the time named for its completion, and breaks the stipulation as to time, he is ordinarily liable to the owner for loss of rent...” Albany Phosphate Co. v. Hugger Bros., 4 Ga. App. 771 (3, 3a) (62 SE 533). See also Concrete Materials v. Smith & Plaster Co., 127 Ga. App. 817 (195 SE2d 219).

2. The trial court did not err in rendering a judgment against defendant contractor for loss of rentals. The [614]*614evidence shows that there was a contract to repair plaintiff’s apartment building followed by an accord and satisfaction thereof which contained a warranty. The rent loss was traceable to defendant’s breach of the latter agreement.

Submitted April 6, 1976 Decided April 23, 1976 Rehearing denied May 12, 1976. Bailey & Shumaker, Kirby G. Bailey, for appellant. Flemister, Beasley, Baird & Slotin, James L. Flemister, for appellees.

3. The five apartments which defendant contracted to repair collectively rented for $1,090 per month. The expense of utilities (which was to be paid by plaintiff as landlord) was $70 monthly per apartment. The apartments were not rented for two months due to defendant’s breach of the contract.

The trial court determined the loss of rent to be $2,110 (the rental income for two months "minus the cost of utilities” (R. 14)) and entered judgment for that amount. The judgment is slightly excessive by reason of a miscalculation. Such mathematical error is understandable in view of the complex nature of the claims presented during a two-day non-jury trial dealing with disputed items involved in a $51,968.86 contract for repairing fire damage to buildings. The cost of the utilities for the five apartments over a two month period was $700. (The trial court¹mistakenly determined that the monthly expense of utilities for the five apartments was $70). Thus, the proper computation of damages for the rentals loss was $2,180 less $700, or $1,480.

Judgment affirmed on condition that the amount in excess of $1,480 be written off; otherwise reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Stolz, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.E.2d 82, 138 Ga. App. 613, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-repair-contracting-co-v-krasnoff-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack