Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellants, who developed a mobile home park, engaged the appellee for preliminary engineering services under an oral contract. The appellee sought to recover a fee of $5,124, which was awarded by the jury. The appellants contested the sufficiency of evidence supporting the fee, the admissibility of certain testimonies, and the instructions provided to the jury. The court allowed the introduction of the property sale price as relevant to the fee's reasonableness and admitted testimony regarding comparative engineering fees for context. Despite appellants' claims regarding jury instructions and the burden of proof, no objections or requests were made at trial, resulting in no error found by the court. The appellants also challenged the verdict form, which only permitted a finding in favor of the appellee, but since they conceded to some debt, the court upheld the form. The judgment affirmed the jury's decision, maintaining the appellee's awarded fee based on the minimum fee schedule of the Arkansas Society of Professional Engineers and the work performed to secure an FHA loan for the development project.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Comparative Fees for Contextsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Testimony from an engineer who later worked on the property was admitted to provide context for the appellee's charges, as his fee was significantly higher.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court permitted testimony from an engineer who later worked on the property, revealing his fee was over $18,000, which could provide context for the appellee’s charges.
Admissibility of Testimony Regarding Sale Pricesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allowed testimony regarding the sale price of the property as it was deemed relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the appellee's fee.
Reasoning: The appellants contended that the trial court erred by allowing Ralph Brophy to disclose the sale price of $140,000 for the property, arguing it was irrelevant. However, the court deemed it relevant for assessing the reasonableness of the appellee’s fee.
Jury Instructions and Burden of Proofsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants argued that the court failed to instruct the jury on the burden of proof, but no request or objection was made during the trial, leading to no error finding.
Reasoning: The appellants raised issues regarding jury instructions, including that the court did not explicitly state that the burden of proof was on the appellee. However, they did not request this instruction nor object at the time.
Sufficiency of Evidence in Breach of Contract Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the appellee's entitlement to a fee. The evidence supported the jury's award based on work performed and the fee calculated on the Arkansas Society of Professional Engineers' schedule.
Reasoning: The evidence established that appellants owned a forty-acre tract for the mobile home park and engaged the appellee in August 1969 to perform engineering work necessary for obtaining a Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loan.
Verdict Form and Acknowledgment of Debtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no error in the verdict form, which only allowed for a finding in favor of the appellee, as the appellants acknowledged some debt to the appellee.
Reasoning: Lastly, they contested the form of the verdict, which only allowed for a finding in favor of the appellee; however, since they acknowledged some debt to the appellee, the court found no error in this regard.