Universal Wall & Ceiling Sys. v. Torthjelm

Universal Wall & Ceiling Sys. v. Torthjelm

Cleanup of the contractor's own debris, including inside and outside areas affected by the work, was an implied contractual term (good and workmanlike manner) and not an extra; the defendants' mitigation expenses were largely unreasonable, therefore plaintiff's invoice of $2,047.50 is payable less a $304 mitigation award to defendants, yielding a judgment for $1,743.50 plus prejudgment interest.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1210
Parties
Plaintiff: Universal Wall & Ceiling Sys.; Defendant (general Contractor): Nate Torthjelm; Defendant (homeowner): Linda Grace Hazelton; Defendant (homeowner): Gregory Bruce Bowles
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Builder's Lien / Contract Action / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff in part; defendants' counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Builder's Lien, Contractual Extras/variations, Mitigation of Damages, Prejudgment Interest
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Law Property Law Breach of Contract Builder's Lien Contractual Extras/variations Mitigation of Damages Prejudgment Interest

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Wall & Ceiling Sys.

Plaintiff

Nate Torthjelm

Defendant (general Contractor)

Linda Grace Hazelton

Defendant (homeowner)

Gregory Bruce Bowles

Defendant (homeowner)

Procedural Posture

Builder's Lien / Contract Action / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cleanup and listed tasks were extras outside the Contract or an implied term of the Contract
  2. 2 Whether the defendants reasonably mitigated their damages and the amount recoverable on the counterclaim
  3. 3 Entitlement to prejudgment interest on the net judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Cleanup of the contractor's own debris, including inside and outside areas affected by the work, was an implied contractual term (good and workmanlike manner) and not an extra; the defendants' mitigation expenses were largely unreasonable, therefore plaintiff's invoice of $2,047.50 is payable less a $304 mitigation award to defendants, yielding a judgment for $1,743.50 plus prejudgment interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff in part; defendants' counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $1,743.50 plus prejudgment interest
  • Counterclaim allowed in part: defendants awarded $304 to be set off against the plaintiff's claim