Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BROURMAN v. BOVA. (06/13/62)

June 13, 1962

BROURMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
BOVA.



Appeal, No. 146, April T., 1961, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Sept. T., 1958, No. 224, in case of Samuel Brourman, trading and doing business as Mabro Company v. Thomas J. Bova et ux. Judgment reversed.

COUNSEL

Edward I. Goldberg, with him Harold L. Roth, and Roth & Herskovitz, for appellant.

James B. Ceris, with him Samuel L. Goldstein, for appellees.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Watkins

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 280]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

Appellant, Samuel Brourman, trading and doing business as Mabro Company, a general contractor, sought to recover in an action of assumpsit the balance of $1,044 alleged to be due on a contract with appellees for repair and construction of an addition to their home in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The original amount of the contract was $6,900 plus extras subsequently added amounting to $44 or a total of $6,944.

Appellees, by way of defense, alleged the failure of appellant to perform the contract in a good and workmanlike manner and filed a counterclaim claiming damages in the sum of $2,659.49, but by an amended answer increased this claim to $5,069.38. A jury returned a verdict in their favor in the amount of $2,900. A motion for a new trial having been refused, this appeal followed.

This appeal raises the following questions: (a) the admissibility of testimony as to costs of repairs given by two experts, who were allegedly not qualified, (b) error in the charge of the court on the matter of damages and (c), error in the charge on the interpretation of the language of the contract "cash upon satisfactory completion."

No complaint is made as to the general qualification of two experts; complaint is made entirely on their

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 281]

    lack of knowledge of the provisions of the contract, and the remoteness of their inspections and estimates. Neither witness examined the contract; Carcaise examined the work for the first time in March, 1960, a month before the trial, and his estimate of damages $5,069.38, was as of that date; Matzzie made his first inspection in the summer of 1958 and a second inspection a week before the trial (April, 1960) and estimated damages at $2,162.50 as of the time of his first visit, although he stated it would cost more at the time he was testifying, without indicating how much more.

We find no merit in the objection relating to their lack of knowledge of the contractual provisions. They were advised by the owner what work had been done; they inspected and saw the work and there was no testimony offered to dispute that fact that they had been properly informed as to the work appellant had contracted to do. On that basis each testified as to what, in his opinion, it would cost to correct the defects they saw so as to complete and restore the work ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.