Rasnick v. Tubbs

126 Ohio App.3d 431, 710 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct.App. 1998)

PARTIES: Dennis Tubbs (Denny’s Street Shop)—Appellant

Charles and Tonyua Rasnick (Bennett & Sieg Auto Wrecking d.b.a. The Rasnick Family Racing Team)—Appellee.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Tubbs appeals an award of damages for $15,903.68.

FACTS: The parties entered into an oral contract for the construction of a race car in December of 1994. The Rasnicks were to supply Tubbs with the engine, transmission, and clutch assembly, not to mention a 1952 Sports Coupe that was to be turned into a 1952 Chevy Pro Modified Race Car.

AGREED PURCHASE PRICE: $52,820 – Parts purchased by Rasnicks would be deducted.

The car was to be completed over 20 weeks time and the Rasnicks agreed to pay $1,000 each week for labor. On May 12, 1995 the car was not completed so the parties found a need for a written contract. The written contract said the same thing except that the car must be completed within six weeks of receiving the wheels and the tires. When the vehicle was finished, the Rasnicks would pay the remainder due in one lump sum.

The tires were delivered on May 26, 1995 and after the six weeks had passed, the car was still not completed. The Rasnicks continued to make payments and on February 26, 1996 they had paid $49,619.25 for a car that was still not finished. The Rasnicks called a meeting and Tubbs told them he needed an additional $20,000 to complete the car. With Tubbs permission, the Rasnicks removed the car from Tubbs’ shop and took it to another mechanic for completion. (Tubbs denied these allegations and said he could complete the car for $5,609.70)

ISSUE: Did the trial court use the correct measure of damages?

HOLDING: Trial court was wrong because they 1) failed to consider costs other than labor and 2) it is unclear how the trial court concluded that the vehicle could be completed for the price the parties bargained for. Judgment affirmed in part, vacated in part and cause remanded.

REASONING: The appellate court uses the measure of damages suggested by the Restatement for compensating an expectation interest. R2K 347. The loss in value is the difference between the value of performance rendered without a breach and the value of performance as it was actually rendered.

DON’T FORGET WHAT THIS CASE REPRESENTS: “As a lawyer, you need to be creative and to be informed by your client as to how he or she can be best compensated within the law. The Rasnick v. Tubbs case is one that cries out for creative thought, given the lack of a market to assess the value of the contract”. (cited from the contracts case book).