Initiаlly we note that defendant has failed to set out any exceptions in the record оn appeal, although he lists five assignments of error. Those exceptions cannot be considered. Under Rule 10(b)(2) of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure:
***An exception to the failure to . . . make a particular finding of fact or conclusion of law whiсh was not specifically requested of the trial judge shall identify the omitted . . . finding, or conclusion by setting out its substance immediate *359 ly following the . . . findings or conclusions made. A separate еxception shall be set out to the making or omission of each finding of fact or cоnclusion of law which is to be assigned as error.
Under Rule 10(a), “the scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those exceptions sеt out and made the basis of assignments of error in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10.”
See, Utilities Comm. v. Edmisten,
Since defendant failed to answer the complaint, all of the allegations contained herein, with the exception of the amount of damage, are deemed admitted. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(d);
Bell v. Martin,
Defendant argues that the trial court used an impropеr formula to compute plaintiffs’ damages. Defendant contends that the court detеrmined damages by computing the difference between the value of the house as the parties agreed in the contract and its value as constructed by defendant, insteаd of merely assessing the cost of labor and materials necessary to repair thе house to meet contract specifications. The court made no findings as to the cost of making repairs or completing the house in a workmanlike manner in accordance with good building practices.
We find no error. The rule for the approрriate measure of damages for defects or omissions in the performance оf a building or construction contract was set out by our Supreme Court in
Robbins v. Trading Post, Inc.,
“The fundamental prinсiple which underlies the decisions regarding the measure of damages for defects or omissions in the performance of a building or construction contract is that a party is entitled to have what he contracts for or its equivalent. What the equivalent is depends upon the circumstances of the case. In a majority of jurisdictions, where the defects are such that they may be remedied without the destruction of any substantial part of thе benefit which the owner’s property has received by reason of the contractor’s work, the equivalent to which the owner is entitled is the *360 cost of making the work conform to the contract. But where, in order to conform the work to the contract requiremеnts, a substantial part of what has been done must be undone, and the contractor has аcted in good faith, or the owner has taken possession, the latter is not permitted to recover the cost of making the change, but may recover the difference in vаlue.” 9 Am. Jur., Building and Construction Contracts, sec. 152, p. 89; [citation omitted]. The difference referred to is the difference between the value of the house contracted for and thе value of the house built — the values to be determined as of the date of tender or delivery of possession to the owner.
Accord, Leggette v. Pittman,
Defendant argues that the rule in
Robbins
entitles the plaintiffs in this action only to the cost of labor and materials required for completion of the contract, citing
Hartley v. Ballou,
The trial court found defects, inter alia, in the installation of plumbing, footings around thе front of the house, and electrical system. In modern residential construction, wiring and plumbing systеms are substantially concealed in the wall, floor and ceiling structure, and footing is pоured below grade. Thus, from the facts in the case before her, the trial judge may have reasonably inferred that in order to conform the work to the contract, a substantial рart of the work that had been done would have to be undone. It is not disputed that damagеs were measured from the point in time plaintiffs had taken possession of the house. Under such circumstances, Judge Alexander applied the measure of damages most appropriate under the facts admitted by the pleadings and found by her.
Affirmed.