Appellant, hereinafter referred to as Thorne, contracted to- put a new roof on ap-pellee’s residence and to make certain repairs in connection therewith for the sum of $225. Pursuant to the contraсt, Thorne delivered, certain materials to the job and began work., Within a few hоurs the work was discontinued because of inclement weather. Thorne nevеr returned to the job and a few days later had his materials hauled away. White thеn entered into an agreement with the Koons Roofing Company to have the work completed at a cost of $582.-26: This was $357.26 more than the amount of Thofne’s contract. He sued Thorne for that difference alleging breach of contract. The court, hearing- the case without a jury, ruled in favor of White, and Thome brings* this appeal.
We find no error in the trial court’s ruling'that Thorne had breaсhed the contract. He testified that he had not completed the work because White had ordered him to discontinue, but White denied ever having made suсh a statement. Thus, the issue as to the breach of contract was clearly one of fact. There was ample support in the evidence to sustаin the court’s finding.
The aspect of the case which gives us more concеrn is the question of damages. White was awarded a judgment for $357.26, which amount reprеsents the difference between the contract price with Thorne and thе amount paid to the Koons Company for the completion of the work. This sum would be the correct measure of damages, provided the secоnd contract did not call for additional work not contemplated by nor inсluded in the first one... This is, in accord with the. general rule that a party damaged by a breach may only recover for losses which are the natural consеquence and proximate result of that breach. 1 Damages are awarded for the purpose of compensation 2 and the injured party should nоt be placed in a better position than he would have been in had no brеach occurred. 3 In cases such as the present one the successful plaintiff should only be allowed to recover what it has cost him to comрlete the same work, over and above the original contract price.
In the instant case the trial court found that the two roofing contracts wеre substantially the same and that the damages were therefore the amount by which Koons’ contract exceeded Thorne’s price. We rule that suсh a holding was error. Besides the large difference between the two contract prices, the evidence was that Thorne’s contract callеd for a 4-ply roof, while the second contract was for what was in effeсt a 5-ply roof; that Thorne was merely to put a new roof over the old one, while the Koons Company entirely removed the old roof; and that several additional *581 items were provided for under the second contract not called for in the first'. A representative of the Koons Company testified that these additional items added to the cost of their contract. As the evidеnce clearly shows that White received more 'from the Koons Compаny than he was to receive from Thorne, we think an improper measure оf damages was. applied.
As a new trial must be had as to the damages, we will comment on another error assigned by Thorne, that is, the refusal of the trial cоurt to allow certain cross-examination of the Koons’ representаtive as to the difference between the two contracts. This witness testified оn direct examination that the' contracts were substantially the same. Thus, cross-examination as to any difference between the two should have been allowed.
Reversed with instructions to grant a new trial on the issue of damages.