Brent Bros. v. Parker

Citations

• 23 Fla. 200

Syllabus

<p>1. When a party contracts to cut and haul logs for another, and is by him. prevented from performing his contract, the true rule of damage in such a case is to ascertain the amount of profits the party contracting to cut and haul would have made if he had gone o,n .and completed.the contract.</p> <p>2. When this rule cannot be applied from the peculiar nature of the contract, as when no fixed time is agreed on for the continuance of the contract, or no definite number or amount of logs are agreed on to be delivered, preparatory work done by the plaintiff as a preliminary necessity to the performance of his contract, . although he would not have been entitled to compensation for it if he completed his contract, maybe compensated for in damages to-the extent of reasonable cost if the defendant prevents him from performing his contract.</p> <p>3. If the party for whom the work is to be performed is justifiable in preventing the contractor from going on with his work, such contractor is not entitled to compensation for preparatory work.</p> <p>4. An instruction given to the jury that such contractor, if discharged or prevented from performing his contract, is entitled to damage ■ for preparatory work, is erroneous if not qualified by making such liability dependent upon a finding as to whether such contractor .was unjustifiably discharged or not.</p> <p>5. When the evidence shows that the contractor had used the.preparatory work after its conipletion for the delivery of a pai-t of the logs, a charge which instructs the jury that such contractor is entitled to the cost of his preparatory work, without any deduction of the value the contractor had derived from its use prior to Ms discharge, is erroneous.</p>