McGrew v. Ide Estate Investment Co.

Citations

• 106 Kan. 348
• 187 P. 887
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 518

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Building Contract — Breach by Owner of Building — Measure of Damages. The measure of damages for the breach of a building contract where the plaintiff has been wrongfully prevented from fully performing, is the difference between what it would cost to complete the entire work according to the contract, and the contract price. The same result may be reached by allowing the plaintiff, as damages for the work done, such proportion of the entire price as the fair cost of that work bears to the fair cost of the whole work, and in respect to the work not done such profits as the evidence shows he would have realized by doing it.</p> <p>2. Same — Breach—Measure of Damages — Erroneous Instruction. In an action by a contractor to recover for the breach of a building contract, an instruction which charges that if the defendant owner breached the contract, the measure of plaintiff’s damages was the profit he would have made on the contract in addition to the reasonable value of the work already performed, is erroneous because, the action being upon the contract, plaintiff was not entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work performed, except as determined by the contract price, and as to the uncompleted work only such profit as the evidence showed he would have realized had he not been prevented from performance.</p> <p>3. Same — Breach—Recovery of Anticipated Profits. Anticipated profits can be recovered only when they are made reasonably certain by competent proof of facts furnishing a rational estimate of their amount. In this case it is held that there was no competent evidence to show what profit, if any, the plaintiff would have made had he not been prevented from completing the work; his own statement on the witness stand that he would have made a profit of a certain amount was of no probative force. (Town Co. v. Leonard, 46 Kan. 354, 26 Pac. 717.)</p>