Homer v. Burman - 743 N.E.2d 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)

Rule:

The goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the parties' intent. Unless the contract provides otherwise, it is implied that the parties intend to comply with all applicable statutes and city ordinances in effect at the time of the contract. Further, in a contract for work, there is an implied duty to do the work skillfully, carefully, and in a workmanlike manner. Negligent failure to do so is a tort, as well as a breach of contract.

Facts:

Plaintiffs hired defendant to perform electrical work on their rental property. During the home improvement project, problems developed. Several of plaintiffs' tenant's electrical appliances were destroyed shortly after defendant completed the work. Additionally, there was damage to the building itself. Plaintiffs subsequently discovered that no permit had been issued and that the outdoor wiring was not consistent with the electrical building code. Plaintiffs filed a complaint in small claims court, alleging breach of contract and seeking unspecified damages, plus reasonable attorney fees. The trial court found for defendant, and plaintiffs appealed.

Issue:

Was the trial court’s judgment contrary to law? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court found that because there was an offer, acceptance, consideration, and a manifestation of mutual assent, a contract was in existence. Further, defendant committed a deceptive act, and plaintiffs were entitled to bring an action for the damages actually suffered. Finally, the trial court's judgment for defendant was contrary to law based on the evidence presented. As such, the judgment was reversed and rendered.