Reynolds v. Jourdan

Citations

• 6 Cal. 108

Syllabus

<p>Where the entire performance of a special contract has been prevented by one of the parties, or its terms have been varied by subsequent agreement, the action for the amdunt due for work and labor, should be in the form of indebitatis assumpsit, and not</p> <p>upon the contract. In such case the contract may be introduced in evidence by either party, as an admission of the standard of value, or as proof of any other fact necessary to the recovery, and should be allowed to go to the jury, whenever it can aid them in attaining a sound conclusion.</p> <p>The opinions of a person not an expert, are not evidence. The proof of the loss of receipts, without proof of their genuineness, is not a sufficient predicate for the admission of evidence as to their contents. The rule that Courts are to givo construction to contracts, is frequently departed from, where the contract relates to the scientific or mechanic arts. In such cases it is common and prudent to admit the opinions of experts to explain the contract.</p>