101 A.3d 1244
R.I.2014Background
- The defendants hired plaintiff to remodel their Westerly home for $240,000; construction began January 2004.
- Several change requests occurred, including a load-bearing beam, stone work, kitchen redesign, and lighting, without written change orders as required by the contract.
- Plaintiff invoiced $318,242.80; credits reduced it by $189,500, then a $2,540 inadvertent overcharge correction reduced the balance further; no timely payment followed.
- On June 2, 2005, plaintiff sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment for the remaining balance.
- Defendants made a Rule 68 offer of judgment of $50,000 on October 2, 2008; plaintiff accepted as part payment on October 6, 2008 and continued the action for the remaining damages.
- Trial in September 2010 awarded $240,000 under the contract plus $4,955.50 for additional electrical work under unjust enrichment, totaling $5,455.50, with interest and costs; later amended judgments addressed prejudgment interest on the offer.
- The Superior Court ultimately held prejudgment interest was payable on the $50,000 offer from accrual to deposit/date of payment, and adjusted the final judgment accordingly, which both sides timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest on the Rule 68 offer is proper | Raiche contends the offer included prejudice interest because the total recovery exceeded $50,000 and the offer was not explicitly exclusive of interest. | Scott asserts the offer was not a full satisfaction and the Rule 68 mechanism does not include prejudgment interest unless explicitly stated. | Prejudgment interest on the $50,000 offer is not included unless explicitly stated. |
| Whether the damages award of $55,455.50 was correct | Raiche argues $126,152.60 was proven and should be awarded; unjust enrichment and parol evidence support higher damages. | Scott contends the trial court correctly limited damages to $55,455.50 under the written contract and unjust enrichment finding. | The Court upheld $55,455.50 as the correct damages award. |
| Impact of parol evidence on the contract interpretation | Raiche relied on oral terms to exceed the written price term. | Scott argues written terms govern; parol evidence only supplements if the agreement is incomplete. | Written terms govern; parol evidence supplemented but did not alter the pricing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 898 A.2d 69 (R.I. 2006) (statutory interpretation standard; de novo review)
- Jacksonbay Builders, Inc. v. Azarmi, 869 A.2d 580 (R.I. 2005) (factors in interpreting statutes and rules)
- Iselin v. Retirement Board of the Employees’ Retirement System of Rhode Island, 943 A.2d 1045 (R.I. 2008) (parol evidence and contract integration context)
- Sindelar v. Leguia, 750 A.2d 967 (R.I. 2000) (parol evidence and contract interpretation)
- Lisi v. Marra, 424 A.2d 1052 (R.I. 1981) (parol evidence rule and incomplete integration)
- Golden Gate Corp. v. Barrington College, 98 R.I. 35 (R.I. 1954) (parol evidence and contract integration)
- Fisher v. Applebaum, 947 A.2d 248 (R.I. 2008) (standard for reviewing damages on appeal)
- Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc., 93 A.3d 1047 (R.I. 2014) (deference to trial court findings; factual review)
- Wellington Condominium Association v. Wellington Cove Condominium Association, 68 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2013) (deference to trial court; factual findings)
- Wellington Condominium Association v. Wellington Cove Condominium Association, 68 A.3d 599 (R.I. 2013) (additional discussion of factual findings on appeal)
- Mendes v. Factor, 41 A.3d 994 (R.I. 2012) (contextual approach to contract interpretation)