Hebert v. Weil

Citations

• 115 La. 424
• 39 So. 389
• 1905 La. LEXIS 673

Syllabus

<p>1. Contracts — Building Contract.</p> <p>This case grew out of a controversy be* tween the owner and the contractor.</p> <p>2. Same — Delay in Completing Building.</p> <p>The contractor, having failed to deliver at the appointed time the houses he was employed to construct, is liable for his default.</p> <p>3. Same — Liquidated Damages.</p> <p>His contract contained the stipulation that he would pay $15 for each day’s delay.</p> <p>4. Same — Extent op Delay.</p> <p>There was a delay of 56 days after the stipulated time.</p> <p>5. Delays Caused by Owner.</p> <p>The owner caused some delay in the construction. Each day’s delay caused by him is deducted from the 56 days, and judgment is rendered for the remainder of days.</p> <p>6. Substantial Compliance.</p> <p>In other respects the contract was substantially complied with.</p> <p>7. Plan op Architect Not Plain.</p> <p>There was deficiency in the height of one of the buildings. The plan was not entirely correct. Contractors cannot be held for errors in architect’s plan not patent on the face of the plan, or for errors not easily detected. The architect’s mistake, the architect having been employed by the owner, should not be charged to the contractor. There was claim for “sundry incompleteness,” which is not sustained.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>