Albre Marble & Tile Co. v. John Bowen Co.
338 Mass. 394
Facts:
-Plaintiff sought damages for defendant’s alleged breach of two subcontracts under which plaintiff agreed to supply labor and materials to defendant as general contractor.
-Plaintiff sought to recover the value of work and labor furnished by it to defendant at defendant’s request.
-The court determined that the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion was proper regarding plaintiff’s breach of subcontract claims because the counter-affidavit filed by plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 69. The court held that plaintiff could recover only for the expenditures plaintiff made pursuant to the specific request of defendant as set forth in the contract. Expenses incurred prior to the execution of the contract, such as those arising out of preparing plaintiff’s bid, were not allowed.
Procedural History:
-Defendant moved for summary judgment in the Suffolk Superior Court, seeking immediate entry of judgment in its favor under Mass Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59, in plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant. Plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and appealed from the order for judgment.
Rule:
-The courts may permit one to recover for those expenditures made in reliance on a contract or in preparation to perform it when made pursuant to the specific request of the other party as set forth in the contract.
-The general contractor did have the burden of fault, so rescission is not going to happen
Analysis:
-Recovery may be had only for those expenditures which, but for the supervening act, would have enured to the benefit of the defendant as contemplated by the contract.
Conclusion:
-The court overruled plaintiff’s exceptions to the grant of summary judgment for defendant regarding the breach of subcontract claims, and sustained and remanded plaintiff’s claims for recovery for the value of work and labor furnished by plaintiff to defendant at defendant’s request.
Facts:
-Plaintiff sought damages for defendant’s alleged breach of two subcontracts under which plaintiff agreed to supply labor and materials to defendant as general contractor.
-Plaintiff sought to recover the value of work and labor furnished by it to defendant at defendant’s request.
-The court determined that the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion was proper regarding plaintiff’s breach of subcontract claims because the counter-affidavit filed by plaintiff did not meet the requirements of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 69. The court held that plaintiff could recover only for the expenditures plaintiff made pursuant to the specific request of defendant as set forth in the contract. Expenses incurred prior to the execution of the contract, such as those arising out of preparing plaintiff’s bid, were not allowed.
Procedural History:
-Defendant moved for summary judgment in the Suffolk Superior Court, seeking immediate entry of judgment in its favor under Mass Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 59, in plaintiff’s breach of contract action against defendant. Plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and appealed from the order for judgment.
Rule:
-The courts may permit one to recover for those expenditures made in reliance on a contract or in preparation to perform it when made pursuant to the specific request of the other party as set forth in the contract.
-The general contractor did have the burden of fault, so rescission is not going to happen
Analysis:
-Recovery may be had only for those expenditures which, but for the supervening act, would have enured to the benefit of the defendant as contemplated by the contract.
Conclusion:
-The court overruled plaintiff’s exceptions to the grant of summary judgment for defendant regarding the breach of subcontract claims, and sustained and remanded plaintiff’s claims for recovery for the value of work and labor furnished by plaintiff to defendant at defendant’s request.
No comments:
Post a Comment