Opinion
May 21, 1973.
PRESENT: Roberts, C.J., Paolino, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.
APPEAL. Contract to Renovate. Fact Findings Below. Support in Records. Supreme Court would not fault finding of trial justice against plaintiff in its suit for balance due on contract price plus extras and for defendants on their counterclaim where evidence showed that plaintiff had not completed renovation project on defendants' home and the work done left much to be desired.
CIVIL ACTION to recover for renovation contract and counterclaim filed by defendants before Supreme Court on appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered pursuant to decision in Superior Court by Kiely, J., heard and appeal denied and dismissed.
John S. Brunero, for plaintiff.
Archambault Archambault, Raoul Archambault, Jr., for defendants.
Early in July, 1965, the defendants hired the plaintiff to renovate their West Warwick home. The contract price was $3,800. Shortly thereafter, the defendants went on vacation after being told that a completely refurbished domicile would await their return. Sometime during their vacation, the defendants were notified that things were not going well on the construction project. They contacted an official of the plaintiff and were told that the renovations would not be completed on time. The defendants returned to West Warwick and took up residence in a friend's home. They paid plaintiff $2,000 on account. This cash infusion did little to remedy the situation. Finally, on October 28, 1965, defendants discharged plaintiff and hired others to complete the work originally contemplated and to correct the deficiencies in the work that had been done. In this action, the plaintiff sued for the balance due on the agreement plus extras, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for the money they have spent as a result of the plaintiff's failure to complete its work or do the job in a workmanlike fashion. A jury-waived trial was held in the Superior Court. The trial justice found for the defendants in the amount of $495.60. The plaintiff has appealed.
There is absolutely no need for any extensive review of the evidence or the law. There are in the record some 15 photographs showing that the renovation project was not completed and that what was done left much to be desired. The defendants' firing of the plaintiff and hiring of other artisans to finish the job were justified. We cannot fault the trial justice's award of damages.
The plaintiff's appeal is denied and dismissed.
Mr. Justice Joslin did not participate.