Scharold v. Property Masters, Inc.

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
SAGADAHOC, SS. Civil Action
Docket No. AP-2019-04

BRIAN SCHAROLD, )
Plaintiff/ Appellee, )
)
)
v. ) ORDER ON APPEAL
)
)
PROPERTY MASTERS, INC. )
Defendant/ Appellant. )

The Defendant appeals from a decision of the District Court (Field, J.) entering
judgment for the Plaintiff on his Statement of Claim made after an evidentiary hearing
on June 12, 2019.

When the Superior Court considers appeals from District Court, the court must
apply the same standards of review that are applied on appeals to the Law Court:
findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; discretionary issues are reviewed for abuse
of discretion; and questions of law are reviewed de nova.

The Statem nt of Claim in this action alleges "[p]remature failure of driveway
sealcoating done in Sept[ember] 2017." The evidentiary hearing held in this matter
established that the Plaintiff entered into an oral contract for services with the Defendant
for the Defendant to sealcoat his driveway for $500.00. After hearing testimony from both
parties, the District Court entered judgment for the Plaintiff and awarded him damages
in the amount of $1680.00, plus costs of $70.00. Though no written findings were made,
it is apparent from the judgment that the District Court found credible the Plaintiff's
testimony concerning the failure and the estimate of $1680.00 to remove the failed sea1ant
and to apply new sealant.

The Appellant argues ·that the District Court could not properly award breach of
contract damages of $1680.00 when the contract at issue was only for $500.00 and that the
court created a warranty when none existed. Both arguments are without merit.

The purpose of an award of compensatory damages for a breach of contract is to
place the plaintiff in the same position that he or she would have enjoyed had there been
no breach. An injured party is entitled to recover for all losses actually suffered as a result
of the breach. Lee v. Scotia Prince Cruises. Ltd. 2003 ME 78, 9121-22, 828 A.2d 210.
216 (internal citations and punctuation omitted).

In this case, the evidence presented would support a finding that the Plaintiff was
entitled to damages in the amount of $1680.00 because this is ·the amount necessary to
place him in the same position as he would have been without a breach - with a properly

1
sealcoated driveway. It is immaterial that the Plaintiff has yet to have the driveway
repaired 1.

The Appellant is effectively arguing that compensatory damages in breach of
contract actions should be limited to the amount of the conh·act. There is no authority for
this proposition. It is not surprising that it may cost more to repair or remove improper
work before a party may be placed in the same position as he or she would have been
had there been no breach.

The Appellant is also mistaken when he argues that no warranty is applicable to
this matter. The implied warranty provisions in Maine's Uniform Commercial Code also
apply to services. The Maine Law Court has confirmed the existence of an implied "duty
to perform skillfully, diligently, and in a workmanlike manner" in a contract for work or
services. Cannan v. Bob Chambers Ford, 432 A.2d 387, 389 (Me. 1981). A contractor
breaches the implied warranty of good workmanship if he or she fails to perform work
in a "reasonably skillful and workmanlike manner." Wimmer v. Down East Properties,
Inc., 406 A.2d 88, 92 (Me. 1979).

The Appellant next argues that the District Court erred by admitting and relying
upon hearsay evidence that amounted to expert testimony. The Appellant argues,
without any supporting authority, that expert hearsay testimony is not allowed without
additional supporting evidence.

The Appellant's argument is contrary to Rule 6 of the Maine Rules of Small Claims
Procedure that states the Rules of Evidence generally do not apply in small claims
proceedings and that the court "may receive any oral or documentary evidence." The
argument that hearsay evidence in small claims proceedings may not include expert
testimony is unsupported by any authority and is contrary to the undersigned's own
experience, which is that consumers in small claims proceedings routinely submit written
estimates supporting the cost and need for repairs.

To the extent that the Appellant believes its due process rights were impacted by
the relaxed process allow in small claims proceedings, its remedy was to demand a jury
trial de nova, as is allowed by Maine law, which would have resulted in a process where
the Rules of Evidence and the procedural protections of the Maine Rules of Civil
Procedure would have applied. However, the Appellant chose not to take advantage of
that available remedy.

For the reasons stated above, and after review of the trial court record and the
briefs of the parties, the court finds that the District Court made no clear error of fact or
errors of law.

1
Evidence was presented that the Defendant sealcoated a number of driveways in the
neighborhood at the same time as the Plaintiff's driveway was sealcoated. A reasonable inference
could be made that the price charged was reduced as a result and that it would cost the Plaintiff
more to have his driveway sealcoated on his own, not at the same time as his neighbors.

2
The decision of the District Court is therefore AFFIRMED.

The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order by reference into the docket for this
case, pursuant to Rule 79(a), Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. \

Dated: March 2, 2020
~(~ JUSTICE, MAINE SUPERIO

3