Lexplug logoLexplug

Thorne v. White

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
103 A.2d 579 (1954)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a contractor breaches a contract for services, the proper measure of damages is the reasonable cost to the non-breaching party of completing the same work as specified in the original contract, over and above the original contract price. The injured party should not be placed in a better position than they would have been in had the contract been fully performed.


Facts:

  • Thorne contracted to install a new 4-ply roof over an existing roof on White's residence for $225.
  • Thorne delivered materials and began the work but discontinued after a few hours, citing inclement weather.
  • Thorne never returned to complete the job and later had his materials removed from the property.
  • White subsequently hired Koons Roofing Company to perform the roofing work.
  • The contract with Koons Roofing Company provided for the complete removal of the old roof, the installation of a 5-ply roof, and several other additional items not included in Thorne's contract, for a total cost of $582.26.

Procedural Posture:

  • White sued Thorne for breach of contract in a trial court.
  • The case was heard by the court, sitting without a jury.
  • The trial court found that Thorne had breached the contract and entered a judgment in favor of White for $357.26.
  • Thorne, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the proper measure of damages for a breached construction contract include the cost of additional or superior work not contemplated in the original agreement?


Opinions:

Majority - Quinn, Associate Judge

No. The proper measure of damages does not include costs for work that is superior to or more extensive than what was specified in the original contract. The fundamental purpose of contract damages is compensation, which aims to put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, not in a better one. Here, the second contract with Koons Company was for a superior 5-ply roof, involved the complete removal of the old roof (which Thorne's contract did not), and included other extras. Awarding White the full difference between the two contract prices improperly forces Thorne to pay for a better roof than he had originally agreed to provide, violating the principle that damages should not result in a windfall for the non-breaching party.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the core principle of expectation damages in contract law, which is to compensate the non-breaching party for their loss without providing a windfall. The court emphasizes that when a party 'covers' by hiring a substitute, the substitute performance must be for a like-for-like good or service. This case serves as a crucial precedent for limiting damages in construction disputes, requiring courts to closely compare the scope of work in the original and substitute contracts to ensure the breaching party is not held liable for upgrades or improvements.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Thorne v. White (1954)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"