Louise Caroline Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dix Construction Corp.
285 N.E.2d 904, 1972 Mass. LEXIS 790, 362 Mass. 306 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contractor breaches a construction contract by abandonment, the proper measure of damages is the reasonable cost to complete the project minus the portion of the contract price that has not yet been paid. The owner is not entitled to recover for the lost 'benefit of the bargain' if the project can be completed within the original contract price.
Facts:
- Louise Caroline Nursing Home, Inc. (Nursing Home) entered into a contract with Dix Construction Corp. (Dix) for the construction of a nursing home.
- Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance) issued a surety bond guaranteeing Dix's performance of the contract.
- Dix failed to complete the nursing home within the agreed-upon time and abandoned the project without justification.
- After Dix defaulted on the contract, Reliance also failed to take any action to ensure the completion of the project.
- The cost for the Nursing Home to hire a substitute contractor and complete the building was within the original contract price, after accounting for the amount that had already been paid to Dix.
Procedural Posture:
- Louise Caroline Nursing Home, Inc. sued Dix Construction Corp. for breach of contract and Reliance Insurance Company for default on a surety bond.
- Dix failed to file an answer and was defaulted.
- The case was referred to an auditor whose findings of fact were stipulated to be final.
- The auditor found that Dix and Reliance had breached their obligations but that the Nursing Home suffered no compensable damages because the cost to complete was within the contract price.
- The Nursing Home filed objections to the auditor's report and moved to recommit the case.
- Reliance filed a cross-motion for judgment in its favor based on the auditor's report.
- The Superior Court judge denied the Nursing Home's motion and granted Reliance's motion for judgment.
- The Nursing Home appealed these rulings to 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:
In a breach of contract action for an abandoned construction project, is the proper measure of damages the reasonable cost to complete the project minus the unpaid contract price, rather than the difference between the value of the building as left by the contractor and the value it would have had if completed?
Opinions:
Majority - Quirico, J.
Yes. In cases of contract abandonment, the measure of damages is the reasonable cost of completing the contract less the part of the contract price that has not been paid. The fundamental principle of contract damages is compensation to make the plaintiff whole, not to place the plaintiff in a better position than if the contract had been fully performed. The 'diminution in value' or 'benefit of the bargain' rule, which the Nursing Home advocated for, applies to cases of defective performance, not abandonment of performance. Since the Nursing Home was able to complete the project for a total cost that did not exceed the original contract price, it suffered no compensable damages. Any potential 'benefit of the bargain' is preserved so long as the owner can obtain the completed building for the originally agreed-upon price.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the distinction between the measure of damages for contract abandonment versus defective performance in construction law. By rejecting the 'diminution in value' standard for abandonment cases, the court prevents owners from receiving a windfall recovery based on the property's market value. The ruling establishes the 'cost of completion' as the exclusive remedy for abandonment, ensuring that damages are tied directly to the actual financial harm incurred to finish the project, which aligns with the core contract principle of compensation rather than enrichment.
Unlock the full brief for Louise Caroline Nursing Home, Inc. v. Dix Construction Corp.