This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal and Mining Co.: Difference between revisions
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''Facts''': Defendant contracted with Plaintiff to use Plaintiff's land as a coal mine, and after such use to clean up the area, which was estimated to have cost Defendant $29,0...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Facts''' | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court=Supreme Court of Oklahoma | |||
|citation=382 P.2d 109 (1962) | |||
|subject=Contracts | |||
}} | |||
'''Facts''' | |||
Plaintiff contracted with defendant coal mining company to allow them to use plaintiff’s land in excavating a coal vein. In the contract, defendant specifically agreed to perform certain restorative and remedial work at the end of the contract. The work would involve moving many thousands of yards of dirt, a cost estimated to be about $29,000, while the improvement to the land was estimated at only $300. | |||
''' | '''Procedural History''' | ||
Verdict for plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000, only a fraction of the cost of performance. | |||
''' | |||
'''Issues''' | |||
Whether the damages should be limited to the difference in the value of the land or to the cost of the remedial work defendant agreed to do. | |||
'''Judgment''' for plaintiff for $300. | |||
'''Reasoning''' | |||
The cost of performance is the proper measure of damages if it does not involve unreasonable economic waste. Where the defect in material or construction is incidental to the main purpose of the contract and one that cannot be remedied without an expenditure for reconstruction disproportionate to the end to be attained, the value rule should be followed. | |||
'''Dissent''' | |||
The measure of damages should be the cost of performance because that is what the contract calls for and there is freedom of contract. | |||
Latest revision as of 00:51, April 27, 2020
| Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal and Mining Co. | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
|---|---|
| Citation | 382 P.2d 109 (1962) |
| Date decided | |
Facts
Plaintiff contracted with defendant coal mining company to allow them to use plaintiff’s land in excavating a coal vein. In the contract, defendant specifically agreed to perform certain restorative and remedial work at the end of the contract. The work would involve moving many thousands of yards of dirt, a cost estimated to be about $29,000, while the improvement to the land was estimated at only $300.
Procedural History
Verdict for plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000, only a fraction of the cost of performance.
Issues
Whether the damages should be limited to the difference in the value of the land or to the cost of the remedial work defendant agreed to do.
Judgment for plaintiff for $300.
Reasoning
The cost of performance is the proper measure of damages if it does not involve unreasonable economic waste. Where the defect in material or construction is incidental to the main purpose of the contract and one that cannot be remedied without an expenditure for reconstruction disproportionate to the end to be attained, the value rule should be followed.
Dissent
The measure of damages should be the cost of performance because that is what the contract calls for and there is freedom of contract.
