KSupreme Court of Minnesota, 1939stubesbozounverifiedsin verificarSkim briefBrief rápido

Groves v. John Wunder Co.

205 Minn. 163, 286 N.W. 235 (1939)

Land left ungraded on purpose, and the full cost of grading awarded

In one lineEn una línea: A lessee who willfully fails to grade land as promised owes the cost of the grading, not the smaller loss in the land's value.El arrendatario que deliberadamente no nivela el terreno como prometió debe el costo de la nivelación, no la menor pérdida de valor del terreno.
RuleRegla: Where a contractor willfully and deliberately fails to perform work promised on land, the owner recovers the reasonable cost of the work, even if that exceeds the resulting increase in the land's value.
Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso: The counterpoint to Peevyhouse: a willful breacher who deliberately leaves work undone must pay what the work would cost, even where the land is worth much less than the cost, because the plaintiff bargained for the work, not for the value.
Procedural posturePostura procesal: The landowner sued the lessee for failing to grade the land as promised; the trial court awarded the diminution in value; the Supreme Court of Minnesota reversed and awarded the cost of completion.

Facts

Wunder leased land from Groves to remove gravel and promised to leave it at a uniform grade. It took the best gravel and deliberately left the land uneven. Grading would cost about $60,000; the land graded would be worth about $12,000.

Procedural posture

Award of diminution in value below; reversed; cost of completion awarded.

Issue

Whether damages are the cost of the promised grading or the diminution in value.

Holding

Cost of completion, because the breach was willful and the owner is entitled to what was promised.

Reasoning

The court refused to let the breacher keep the money it saved by not performing; economic waste concerns yield where the breach is deliberate and the owner can use the money to do the work.

Rule (own words)

Deliberately skip the work, pay for the work. Compare Peevyhouse, which answered the same facts the other way.

cost of completion vs. diminution in value diminution in value expectation damages (R.2d § 347)

Compare withComparar con: Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. (contrasts)

Read the public opinionLeer la opinión (texto público). SourceFuente: Skim from memory of the public opinion; verify before citing..