Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co., Inc.
363 N.E.2d 675, 372 Mass. 688, 97 A.L.R. 3d 1214 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a vendor deliberately breaches a purchase and sale agreement by removing materials from real property before conveyance, the measure of damages for the purchaser is the fair market value of the materials as they lay in the land, excluding any value added by the vendor's labor in removing them.
Facts:
- Around March 1, 1971, the purchasers (Rubin) viewed a well-wooded lot with a building under construction that they were interested in buying.
- On March 8, 1971, the purchasers and the vendor (Murray) executed a purchase and sale agreement for the property.
- Around April 11, 1971, after the agreement was signed, one of the purchasers discovered that many trees had been uprooted and toppled on the property.
- The purchaser instructed the defendant's president to stop, but Murray continued to bulldoze trees and removed the majority of standing trees.
- From May 2 to July 30, 1971, Murray removed approximately 3,600 cubic yards of gravel from the property.
- Rubin had expressly disapproved of the removal of standing trees, gravel, and loam, except for what was necessary for the house and septic system construction.
- On September 21, 1971, Rubin paid the agreed purchase price of $26,900 and title passed, but this price did not account for the diminished value caused by the removal of the materials.
Procedural Posture:
- The purchasers (Rubin) sued the vendor (Murray) in Superior Court, seeking specific performance and damages for the removal of materials from the property.
- The case was referred to a master, whose findings and recommendations were adopted by the Superior Court.
- The Superior Court entered a judgment awarding Rubin $6,480 in damages, plus interest.
- Murray (defendant/appellant) appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the judgment, holding that the damages should be based on the diminution in the land's value rather than the value of the removed gravel based on a conversion theory, and remanded the case for redetermination of damages. Rubin was the appellee at this stage.
- Rubin (plaintiffs) sought and were granted further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
What is the proper measure of damages for a vendor's willful breach of a real estate purchase and sale agreement, committed by removing natural resources from the land before the title is conveyed to the purchasers?
Opinions:
Majority - Braucher, J.
No, the measure of damages for a vendor's willful breach of a real estate purchase and sale agreement, committed by removing natural resources from the land before title is conveyed, is not the value of the gravel loaded on trucks (which includes the vendor's labor) but rather its fair market value as it lay in the land. The court clarified that the purchasers' rights, under Massachusetts law, were contractual rather than property ownership rights prior to the deed's delivery, meaning the vendor retained legal title and risk. While the Appeals Court had incorrectly focused on a conversion theory (which requires possession), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the case should be treated as a claim for a deliberate and willful breach of contract. Applying the basic principle of contract damages—to put the aggrieved party in the position they would have been in if the contract were fully performed—the court determined that damages limited solely to the diminution in the premises' value might be inadequate for such a deliberate breach. Instead, to prevent the wrongdoer from profiting, the purchasers are entitled to the fair market value of the removed materials. However, consistent with precedents for damages involving materials removed from land, this value should be calculated as the material's worth 'as they lie in the land,' explicitly excluding any value added by the defendant's labor in severing and loading the materials onto trucks. The court remanded the case for a redetermination of damages based on this standard.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the measure of damages in Massachusetts for a deliberate contractual breach by a vendor who removes materials from land prior to conveyance. By rejecting a tort theory of conversion and emphasizing contractual rights, the court provides a specific framework that prevents unjust enrichment of the breaching party without awarding punitive damages. The distinction between 'value as it lay in the land' and 'value loaded on trucks' is crucial for valuing raw materials, establishing a clear precedent for assessing damages for such acts in real estate transactions. This ruling ensures that purchasers are compensated fairly for lost resources while avoiding over-compensation for the vendor's labor.
