131 Ga. App. 502 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1974
This appeal is by defendant below from a judgment
Appellant argues that the issue for determination was plaintiffs performance. Accordingly, it is contended that the evidence required the principle of quantum meruit to be applied rather than the contract price. Counsel relies upon Brown v. Home Security Corp., 106 Ga. App. 147 (126 SE2d 439). Such reliance is not well founded as it was there held that where a contract for services is breached it is for the plaintiff to elect as between seeking to recover under the contract or on a quantum meruit for the value of the services. That holding does not empower defendant to make the selection.
Plaintiff here sued for the amount stipulated in an oral agreement. The court’s findings of fact shows that it used that contractual figure as being the applicable measure of damages. This was proper. Frierson v. Fincher, 134 Ga. 113 (1) (67 SE 541). See also Ford v. Harden, 94 Ga. App. 902 (2) (96 SE2d 617); Davenport v. Pope, 96 Ga. App. 799 (101 SE2d 614).
Our examination of the trial transcript shows there was competent evidence to support the findings of fact as to the terms of the agreement, the performance of the work, and an agreed price. Under such circumstances we must affirm. Code Ann. § 81A-152; Cutcliffe v. Chesnut, 126 Ga. App. 378 (190 SE2d 800).
Judgment affirmed.