Laserfiche WebLink
LUBJECT PAGE -2- �„r O� C.VCPCTT, EVCRETT. WASHING�Cn <br /> It is obvious that the fact that there were occupants in the house made it <br /> impossible for the contractor to perform his obligations of the contract. Section <br /> 181, Simpson �n Contracts, fid Edition (1954), states that: <br /> "Whereafter part perfcrmance by one party a supervening event i <br /> discharges his further duty inder the contract because of <br /> impossibility, he may recover the reasonable value of what he has , <br /> done in quasi contr�,::. For repairs and improvements to property <br /> belonging to the defend+vit, accidently destroyed before completion, <br /> the plaintiff may recove.r in quasi contract since his contractual duty <br /> is execused by impossibility. . . The recovery, however, cannot <br /> exceed the benefit perceived by the Aefendant:' <br /> Thus, because the contractor was ready, willing and able to perfo���. tus part of the <br /> agreement, he should be entitled to recover a reasonablc sum for expected profits <br /> and out-of-pocket costs. <br /> RC•COMMENDATI(;iv <br /> I believe that the amoiait requested ($735.69) is excessive. I would recommend tliat <br /> the City make an initial offer of $400. <br /> Attachments / j <br /> � �,�' ;� <br /> � � ' <br /> � � ' ��� � -��� i <br /> � � <br /> � �.S vt.J�. 5c.� � �..7c.. k.c.��e- m�..,.� I <br /> �t,gus„SIL. o�3<-ti 4�ouw�Sr� �`- '����`� <br /> I <br /> 9�.7vW./.A � c��M �.�tPc�'��y� . <br /> �i� <br /> � ----------------------- � <br /> ------------- <br />