Nash v. Kornblum

186 N.E.2d 551 (1962)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a fence building company. P entered into negotiations with D, who ran a Summer camp. D wanted to build a fence around three tennis courts. P made an initial verbal quote on 484 feet of ten-foot-high chain link fencing for $2,040. D balked at the price and asked for alternatives. P indicated that the job could be done with hex netting. P prepared two quotes, one with chain link and the other with hex netting. The hex netting quote came in at $1,829. The material was only available in 5-ft increments, so it required twice the linear feet as chain link did. Each proposal stated that if more or less material was needed to be installed that an adjustment in price would be made. D signed the second proposal and returned it with a $600 deposit. When construction around the tennis courts was almost completed, D inquired about a handball court. P quoted the priced based on the tennis court price, and a letter was received from P confirming that estimate requesting that a duplicate letter be signed and returned, the work went on without this additional approval. When the job was completed the perimeter of the tennis court was determined to be 534, and there was an additional 50 feet on each side of the handball court for a total of 634 feet. The amount of linear feet of hex netting was 1,268. P sent D a bill for $2,394.50 less the $600 deposit. A month later, D sent P a check for $597.92 with a letter stating that this paid for the 634 feet installed claiming that P had made a mistake as the linear feet was only 634. D then stated in his letter that he would like to enclose another area of about 300 feet and that P should get in touch with him so that D could use up his remaining 334 feet in the contract. P then sued to reform the executed contract to read 484 linear feet. D wants the contract enforced. P claimed that the reference to the 968 linear feet was a typo or inadvertent error on the part of P’s secretary to reflect the length of 5-foot width fencing material and not the entire length upon the ground. The trial judge dismissed the complaint with the finding that the proof failed to show fraud on the part of D. P appealed.