Alan A. TROY
v.
Henry N. BRETZ, Jr. (Bretz Builders).
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
*668 Alan A. Troy, in pro. per.
Chapman L. Sanford, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Before COVINGTON, CHIASSON and LEAR, JJ.
COVINGTON, Judge.
This is аn appeal by a building contractor, Henry N. Bretz, Jr. (Bretz Builders), from a judgment in favor of a homeowner, Alan A. Trоy, in the amount of $1,549.07, with legal interest and costs. We affirm.
This action began as a breach of contract suit brought by the homeowner, Mr. Troy, against the contractor, Mr. Bretz. The parties entered into a written contract dated December 29, 1978, by which the contractor agreed to make certain home reрairs, for $3,200.00, brought about by water leaking for a period of time into Troy's house from an area near the bathroom window. The evidence showed that Troy and Bretz looked over the leakage problem and that the homeowner pointed out that the leak was a chronic problem and, in effect, it wаs up to the contractor to ascertain the problem and make the necessary repаirs to fix the leak, for a definite price. The contractor entered into the agreement and undertook the repairs. After completion of the repairs, Bretz received payment of the сontract *669 price. However, shortly thereafter, the leak reappeared in the same location.
Subsequently, the contractor refused to make any further attempt to repair the leak; however, he did agree to allow Troy to get certain flashing installed in the window area (which Bretz reсommended as a solution to the problem) and agreed to pay half the cost of the flashing work. Dеspite the addition of the flashing, the leak continued to be a problem. Finally, Mr. Troy employed Carl Micheli to make the necessary repairs to stop the leak at a cost of $1,549.07.
It is implied in every building contract that the work of the contractor (builder) will be in a good, workmanlike manner, free from defеct either in material or workmanship. Standard Roofing Company, Inc. v. Ragusa Brothers, Inc.,
The basic law in regard to a contractor's liability for failure to perform properly a building contract is found in LSA-C.C. art. 2769, as follows:
"If an undertaker fails to do the work he hаs contracted to do, or if he does not execute it in the manner and at the time he has agreed to do it, he shall be liable in damages for the losses that may ensue from his non-compliance with his contract."
The plaintiff claims that he contracted with the defendant to perform several items of hоme repair, one of which was to determine the source of and repair a leak in the vicinity of a bathroom window, but that the defendant breached the contract. The defendant's position is that thе leak was a roof leak rather than a window leak; and that the homeowner compromised by accepting half of the cost of installing the flashing.
The thrust of the defense is that there was no agreemеnt between Troy and Bretz because it was not contemplated that extensive repairs to roof and siding would be required to fix the leak. We find the evidence shows the object of the undertaking contraсted by the defendant was to stop the existing leak. If the cause of the leak was the roof, the defendant should have noticed it and declared it to the plaintiff. The evidence shows that the defendant failed to make the repairs in a workmanlike manner; and thus, he breached the contract with Troy and is liable in damages therefor.
On the question of compromise, we find that the evidence does not supрort the defendant's contention on this issue. LSA-C.C. arts. 3071 and 3073.[1] It is clear from the testimony of Mr. Troy that the compromise was in regard to certain flashing work that Mr. Bretz recommended as a possible solution to the leаkage problem, and not to the leakage problem. A compromise only extends to the differеnces which the parties intended to include therein. LSA-C.C. art. 3073.
The case of Jones v. Tharpe Brothers Builders, Inc.,
*670 We find the damages awarded by the trial court proper, in line with the law, and supported by the evidence. Under LSA-C.C. art. 1934, such damages are recoverable as reasonably contemplated by thе parties.
For the assigned reasons, the judgment appealed is affirmed at the appellant's costs.
AFFIRMED.
NOTES
Notes
[1] Art. 3071:
"A transaction or compromise is an agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their differences by mutual consent, in the manner which they agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing.
"This contract must be reduced into writing."
Art. 3073:
"Transactions regulate only the diffеrences which appear clearly to be comprehended in them by the intention of the pаrties, whether it be explained in a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what is expressed; and they do not extend to differences which the parties nevеr intended to include in them.
"The renunciation, which is made therein to all rights, claims and pretensions, extends only to what relates to the differences on which the transaction arises."