{
  "id": 8555918,
  "name": "TRIAD CONSTRUCTORS, INC., now known as Jesco, Incorporated v. R. F. MORRIS, SR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Triad Constructors, Inc. v. Morris",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7421DC1054",
  "first_page": "647",
  "last_page": "650",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 647"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 766",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 668",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615881
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0668-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5596,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2060218568727366
    },
    "sha256": "e01e6c03be6d92400eba2e1a3a877e1febf48c69cc963e58f186369a0263dd13",
    "simhash": "1:887365a9497297a6",
    "word_count": 930
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TRIAD CONSTRUCTORS, INC., now known as Jesco, Incorporated v. R. F. MORRIS, SR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant offered evidence tending to show that at the time he entered into the contract he indicated a concern to plaintiff about a possible water problem if the building was constructed too low. The building was constructed on a lot which drained from back to front according to its slope. After the first rain, defendant noticed water running into the building and standing around the outside of the building.\nHarold Swain testified for defendant, over plaintiff\u2019s objection, that if the concrete floor of the building had been constructed five and three-quarter inches higher then there would have been more of a slope available for the drainage of water from the back of the lot toward the front. Plaintiff contends that Mr. Swain\u2019s testimony should have been excluded because the jury could have drawn the same conclusion from the evidence. We disagree. Mr. Swain was hired by defendant to pave the lot around the building and had vast experience in this business. He also dealt with drainage problems. He was better qualified than the jury to form such an opinion, and the jury benefited from his experience.\nPlaintiff also contends that it was error to admit testimony concerning the cost of repairs required to correct the water problem where the \u201cdiminution in value\u201d was the proper measure of damages due to the substantial repair cost. We find no error here. As stated by Justice Ervin in Simrel v. Meeler, 238 N.C. 668, 78 S.E. 2d 766 (1953), \u201c[T]he law is realistic enough to recognize that the cost of the necessary repairs has a logical tendency to shed light upon the question of the difference in market value.\u201d The trial court properly instructed the jury as to whether they should measure damages by the \u201ccost of repair\u201d or by the \u201cdiminution in value\u201d of the building and the amount to be credited to plaintiff. This assignment of error is overruled.\nPlaintiff further contends that it was error to allow Ray Johnson, an expert in property evaluation, to testify as to the value of the premises as promised and the value actually received by defendant \u2014 that is, the \u201cdiminution in value\u201d. Johnson testified that defendant was damaged in the amount of $10,500.00. He explained his valuation as follows: The premises were actually leased to a tenant for a term of ten years. (According to testimony of the tenant, the tenant was unaware of a water problem when he leased the building.) Based on the rent under the existing lease, Johnson calculated defendant\u2019s return on his investment (about 10%). Johnson then estimated the reduced rental value of the building due to the water problem and determined what the reduced value of the premises would be in order to give defendant a similar rate of return. This latter figure represented the value of the building as actually received by defendant with the water problem. Subtracting the value of the building as built from the value if properly constructed, Johnson found a difference of $10,500.00. We find nothing wrong in this method. It appears to be just another way to determine the diminution in value of business property resulting from a breach of contract by the builder. This assignment of error is overruled.\nPlaintiff\u2019s remaining assignment of error is also overruled.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Berrell F. Shrader and Raymond D. Thomas, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Jack F. Canady for defendant appellee.'"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TRIAD CONSTRUCTORS, INC., now known as Jesco, Incorporated v. R. F. MORRIS, SR.\nNo. 7421DC1054\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\n1. Evidence \u00a7 41 \u2014 testimony not invasion of province of jury\nIn a counterclaim action for breach of contract in failing properly to elevate the floor of a building constructed by plaintiff for defendant, testimony by defendant\u2019s witness that if the floor of the building had been constructed a certain distance higher there would have been more of a slope available for drainage from the back of the lot toward the front did not invade the province of the jury.\n2. Damages \u00a7 13 \u2014 diminution in value \u2014 cost of repairs\nTestimony as to the cost of repairs was properly admitted on the question of \u201cdiminution in value\u201d in an action for breach of contract in the construction of a building.\n3. Damages \u00a7 13; Contracts \u00a7 29 \u2014 improper construction of building \u2014 damages \u2014 capitalization of income method\nIn a counterclaim action for breach of contract in failing properly to construct a building, the trial court did not err in the admission of expert testimony as to \u201cdiminution in value\u201d based on the value of the building if properly constructed, the return on investment under an existing lease, and what the reduced value of the property would be in order to give a similar rate of return.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Alexander, Judge. Judgment entered 18 July 1974 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 February 1975.\nPlaintiff instituted this action to recover the sum of $4,452.00 pursuant to a contract between the parties. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that it was to construct a metal building for defendant at a price of $23,288.00 and that only $18,876.00 had been paid, leaving a balance due of $4,412.00 plus $40.00 for additional work on the building. Defendant answered, denying plaintiff\u2019s claim. Defendant also counterclaimed asking for recovery of $10,000.00 for planitiff\u2019s breach of contract in that plaintiff failed properly to elevate the floor of the building, causing a water problem. The jury returned a verdict awarding defendant $6,929.93. From judgment entered on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.\nBerrell F. Shrader and Raymond D. Thomas, for plaintiff appellant.\nJack F. Canady for defendant appellee.'"
  },
  "file_name": "0647-01",
  "first_page_order": 675,
  "last_page_order": 678
}