David reiss connellsville pa
(b) the reasonable cost of completing performance or of remedying the defects if that cost is not clearly disproportionate to the probable loss in value to him. *296 (a) the diminution in the market price of the property caused by the breach, or (2) If a breach results in defective or unfinished construction and the loss in value to the injured party is not proved with sufficient certainty, he may recover damages based on In principle, this requires a determination of the values of those performances to the injured party himself and not their values to some hypothetical reasonable person or on some market." Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347, comment b (emphasis added).īecause it is sometimes difficult in building contract cases to prove with certainty the loss in value to the injured party, he or she may elect to calculate loss in value in accordance with Section 348(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. "If defective or partial performance is rendered, the loss in value caused by the breach is equal to the difference between the value that the performance would have had if there had been no breach and the value of such performance as was actually rendered. (c) any cost or other loss that he has avoided by not having to perform.
(b) any other loss, including incidental or consequential loss, caused by the breach, less
#David reiss connellsville pa plus
(a) the loss in the value to him of the other party's performance caused by its failure or deficiency, plus Subject to the limitations stated in §§ 350-53, the injured party has a right to damages based on his expectation interest as measured by
The general measure of damages in breach of contract cases is set forth in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 as follows: Appellant contends that the jury's award of damages was unsupported by the evidence and contrary to law. In answer to another interrogatory, the jury found that the dwelling house would *295 have had an increased market value of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars if it had been constructed according to the terms of the contract. The jury found further that the cost of correcting the defects and completing construction as agreed was fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars. In response thereto, the jury found that appellant had failed to construct a residential dwelling for appellees in accordance with the parties' contract and had performed some of the construction in a defective and unworkmanlike manner. The case was submitted to the jury on special interrogatories. After post-trial motions had been denied and judgment entered on the verdict, Licciardi appealed. In this action on a building contract, the jury found that the contract had been breached by the builder, Licciardi Construction Company (Licciardi), and awarded damages to the owners, Donald Douglass and Regina Douglass, in the amount of fifteen thousand ($15,000) dollars. LICCIARDI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, a Pennsylvania Corporation, a/k/a Foxchase, Appellant.