You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Wilkinson v. Jay's Contracting, Inc.

Citations: 76 Or. App. 142; 708 P.2d 376Docket: 25039-102; CA A32806

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; October 29, 1985; Oregon; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Petitioner sought judicial review of a final order from the Builders Board requiring payment of $31,400.80 to the claimant. The case involved a contract for building a house valued at $143,272, where the claimant paid $130,100 before alleging construction defects and initially seeking $10,080 in damages, later amended to $53,000. 

A hearings officer found damages for repair costs related to most defects, calculated the decreased value of the house due to an unauthorized change in construction, and determined an overall damage award of $46,163.16. After accounting for credits owed to the petitioner and unpaid contract payments, the final amount owed to the claimant was set at $31,400.80.

The Builders Board adopted the hearings officer's findings and conclusions, which included specific damages for features not delivered as per the contract. However, the rationale for awarding an additional $28,500 based on a $10 per square foot valuation was unclear, as it appeared to overlap with the damage calculations for repairs and undelivered features.

Oregon law requires that findings of fact and conclusions of law in contested cases must be rationally based. The Board's decision did not adhere to established principles that typically apply in civil cases regarding damage calculations, specifically that the cost of repair or replacement is the proper measure unless it results in undue economic waste. The award for lost value was deemed impermissible under these guidelines. Consequently, the court reversed the Builders Board's decision and remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to legal standards in damage assessments.