Hancock v. Northcutt

Facts

This was a dispute between the owner-builders of an earth-sheltered concrete house, P, and the concrete contractors for the house, D. P and D made an oral contract for the construction of concrete pods. Things did not go well, and each side disputed the terms of the agreement. Construction was delayed, but eventually, all 7 concrete pads were poured. P claims some of the work was defective and ordered D off the job. D filed a lien for $13,100, but the suit to enforce the lien was dismissed because D failed to comply with registration requirements for contractors in Alaska. P finished the house and then sued D for breach of contract and misrepresentation and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Instruction 40 told the jury in general that if repair was feasible, the reasonable cost of putting the house in the condition promised by the contract should be the measure of damage. If, however, repair was not feasible, the jurors were told to award the difference between the value the house would have had if it had been built as promised and the actual value of the house. The jury was also instructed that even if repair was impractical and grossly wasteful, the cost of the repair method could be used if the jury found any one of the following: (1) that the house has a special significance to P; (2) that Ps were more likely than not to demolish and rebuild the house; or (3) that the house creates a dangerous condition. The jury returned a verdict for P. It awarded P $455,984 as the cost of demolishing and rebuilding the house, $19,600 for moving and storage costs and temporary housing during reconstruction, $7,200 for past lost use of portions of the house, $28,486 for costs incurred by construction delays, and $175,000 for emotional distress. Compensatory damages thus totaled $686,271. D appealed. P cross-appealed for dismissal or its tort claims. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.