WILHELMINA TRIPP AND MACK TRIPP, HER HUSBAND,
v.
W. A. HENDERSON, DOING BUSINESS AS HENDERSON ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A contractor sued a building owner for payment for repair work after a fire destroyed the building before completion. The court held that when a building is destroyed by fire during repair work, the contractor may recover the reasonable value of work satisfactorily completed and materials incorporated into the building, even though the overall contract was for an entire, indivisible price.
The court held that the contractor may recover the reasonable value of work already performed and materials incorporated into the building, limited to the portion of the contract price that corresponds to work that had become identified with the building before destruction occurred.
“the general rule in this country is that where one agrees to furnish the labor and materials to do repair work on an existing building, the property of another, the agreement is upon the implied condition that the building shall remain in existence, and that destruction of it without fault of either party excuses performance of the contract by the person performing such labor and entitles him to recover the reasonable value of the part performance already effected.”
Establishes the foundational principle that repair contracts contain an implied condition regarding building existence and permit recovery for partial performance upon fortuitous destruction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe contractor agreed to make repairs and alterations to the owner's building, with payment due "as each portion was satisfactorily finished." The con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Excuse Of Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff-appellee contractor agreed with the appellant-defendant owner to make certain repairs and alterations to a building of the owner. The work was divisible into units and was to .be paid, for “as each portion was satisfactorily finished.” Except for the extras the contract fixed no price on any portion. By the original contract the price was entire and was not divisible or severable.
The building was so damaged by fire as to prevent completion of the work under conditions in contemplation between the parties when the contract was entered into. The contractor sued the owner on the common counts.
The owner filed pleas for the general issue and a special plea (additional plea 3) setting up that the portions covered by A and D had been completed and paid for before the fire but that the portions covered by B and C were not satisfactorily completed before the fire. It appears that portions B and C had been partially completed.
By this special plea three (3) the defendant owner denies liability for any of the work done or materials furnished for portions B and C on the ground of incompletion.
*444The, trial court- sustained a demurrer to this third plea, which had the effect of' holding that in case of fire under the circumstances that the loss would fair on the owner and that he was liable pro tanto in event of fortuitous destruction of the building before completion of the work. Upon appeal after final adverse judgment the. owner appeals and assigns as error the order sustaining a demurrer to said special plea.
“ . . . the general rule in this country is that where one agrees to furnish,tfie lab.or.and materials to do repair work on an existing building, the property of another, the agreement is upon the implied condition that the building shall remain in'existence, and that destruction of it without fault of either party excuses performance of the contract by the person performing such-labor and entitles him to recover the: reasonable value of the part performance already effected.”' 9' Am. Jur. Section 64, page 46.
“ . . . the measure of recovery by- the. contractor under a remodeling contract is the pro rata part which the contract price of the work and material wrought into the building bears to the cost-of the entire work and materials contracted for: It has been held that recovery, where the contract is to repair and remodel a- building, should be limited to the amount of contract work done which, at the time the structure was- destroyed, had become so far identified with it that the material furnished and the labor performed would- have inured to the owner’s benefit as contempláted- by the contract, if destruction had:.not occurred.” 9 Am. Jur. Section 64, page 47. - ■
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. JV, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everglades Laundry, Inc. v. Obenour, 204 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Tripp v. Henderson, 1947, 158 Fla. 442, 28 So. 2d 857; Golub v. De Linardy Flooring Co., Fla.1950, 44 So. 2d 75; Poranski v. Millings, Fla.1955, 82 So. 2d 675.…
-
La Gasse Pool Constr. Co. v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 288 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…l destruction of the structure of res which is the subject matter of the contract, without fault of either the contractor or owner, excuses performance by the contractor and entitles him to recover for the value of the work done. Tripp v. Henderson, 158 Fla. 442, 28 So. 2d 857 (1947); Moon v. Wilson, supra. The rationale of this rule is that the contract has an implied condition that the structure will remain in existence so the contractor can render performance. Destruction of the structure makes performan…