Legal Opinion

Durham Lumber Co. v. Wrenn-Wilson Construction Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 18, 1959No. 667PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

Where a building contract is substantially, but not exactly, performed, the amount recoverable by the contractor depends upon the nature of the defects or omissions. “Where the defects or omissions are of such a character as to be capable of being remedied, the proper rule for measuring the amount recoverable by the contractor is the contract price less the reasonable cost of remedying the defects or omissions so as to make the building conform to the contract.” Annotations: 134 Am. St. Rep. 678, 684; 23 A.L.R. 1435, I486; 38 A.L.R. 1383; 65 A.L.R. 1297, 1298.

In an action to recover the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Wells v. ClaytonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. American Trust Co. v. Catawba Sales & Processing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Griffin v. United Services Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  4. McAden v. . CraigSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. Moss v. Best Knitting MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Link v. LinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Davis v. Dennis Lilly Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Hartley v. BallouSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. General Tire and Rubber Co. v. Distributors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  5. Johnson v. LambSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API