FRANK EDGAR, APPELLANT,
v.
A. J. HOSEA AND MARY SUE HOSEA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Edgar appealed a judgment for breach of a building contract against contractors A. J. Hosea and Mary Sue Hosea. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that damages for a dwelling constructed not in accordance with contract specifications should be measured by the cost of repair rather than difference in market value, recognizing the esthetic value unique to residential construction.
The court held that for a residential dwelling, damages should be measured by the cost of repair or completion rather than the difference in market or loan value, because a dwelling has unique esthetic value and must be constructed as the owner wants it, even if the finished dwelling may be functionally equivalent.
“a party is entitled to have what he contracts for or its equivalent. What the equivalent is depends upon the circumstances of the case, among which is the consideration of whether the defect or omission is remediable without tearing down what has been done by the contractor and rebuilding.”
Establishes the fundamental principle underlying damages calculation in construction contract disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA building contractor failed to construct a dwelling in accordance with the terms of the contract. The case involves a dispute over the proper measure…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
The principal issue in this cause is the proper measure of damages for breach of a building contract, when the contractor fails to construct a dwelling in accordance with his agreement.
The general rules relative to the measure of damages in this regard are set forth in 13 Am.Jur.2d, Building and Construction Contracts, § 79, as follows:
“Damages for defects or omissions in performance, generally.
“The fundamental principle which underlies the decisions regarding the meas*234ure of damages for defects or omissions in the performance of a building or construction contract is that a party is entitled to have what he contracts for or its equivalent. What the equivalent is depends upon the circumstances of the case, among which is the consideration of whether the defect or omission is remediable without tearing down what has been done by the contractor and rebuilding.
“As a general rule, the measure of damages is the cost of correcting the defects or completing the omissions, rather than the difference in value between what ought to have been done in the performance of the contract and what has been done, where the correction or completion would not involve unreasonable destruction of the work done by the contractor and the cost thereof would not be grossly disproportionate to the results to be obtained. On the other hand, the courts generally adhere to the view that if a builder or contractor has not fully performed the terms of the construction agreement, but to repair the defects or omissions would' require a substantial tearing down and rebuilding of the structure, the measure of damages is the difference in value between the work if it had been performed in accordance with the contract and that which was actually done, or (as it is sometimes said) the difference between the value of the defective structure and that of the structure if properly completed. Despite this latter rule, however, there is some authority to the effect that damages for a contractor’s breach of a contract to construct <t dwelling, where it is not constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications, are the amount required to reconstruct it to make it conform to such plans and specifications, rather than the difference in loan or market value on the finished dwelling, since unlike a commercial structure, a dwelling has an esthetic value and must be constructed as the owner wants it, even though the finished dwelling may be just as good.” [emphasis added]
This cause falls in the latter category emphasized above and the verdict, being within the range of the evidence of the cost of repair, the judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982)…use had increased substantially since the date of the contract. The district court agreed with the trial court’s finding that the contract had been breached, but found that it had applied the incorrect measure of damages. Relying on Edgar v. Hose a, 210 So. 2d 233 (Fla.3d DCA 1968), the third district held that the unreasonable economic waste doctrine does not apply to residential construction. It fur [*1039] ther found that Grossman’s willful and intentional failure to perform according to the plans and spec…
-
B & J Holding Corp. v. Weiss, 353 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…ies. The record contains ample testimony as to the expenses which will have to be incurred to correct the defects and in a case of this nature the measure of damages is the cost of correcting the defects or completing the omissions. Edgar v. Hosea, 210 So. 2d 233 (Fla.3d DCA 1968). Next, defendants Sternberg, Okun and Halpern contend the court erred in instructing the jury that it could find them personally liable, as initial officers and directors of the condominium association, for B & J’s failure to make…
-
Oven Dev. Corp. v. Molisky, 278 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…971) 247 So. 2d 72. 2A . Bayshore Development Co. v. Bonfoey, 75 Fla. 455, 78 So. 507. . Johnson v. Dichiara, (Fla.1956) 84 So. 2d 537. . Ray v. Dock and Marine Construction, Inc., (Fla.App.1966) 183 So. 2d 237. . Edgar v. Hosea, (Fla.App.1968) 210 So. 2d 233, 234. . Davis v. Stew, (Fla.1952) 60 So. 2d 630. . Berwick Corp. v. Kleinginna Investment Corp., (Fla.App.1962) 143 So. 2d 684.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence