## Facts

- Stillman Armstrong operated a lath mill in Vanceboro, Maine.
- Bangor Mill Supply Corp. operated a machine shop and took in machinery for repair.
- In 1927, Armstrong sent a broken crankshaft used in his mill’s operations to Bangor Mill for repair.
- Bangor Mill performed the repair work and returned the crankshaft to Armstrong.
- When the crankshaft was reinstalled, it was not properly repaired (including misalignment), and it would not operate correctly.
- Armstrong had to return the crankshaft to Bangor Mill for correction.
- Armstrong’s mill shut down for six days while the crankshaft problem was being fixed.
- During the shutdown, Armstrong claimed he incurred continuing operating charges (maintenance-type costs and other fixed expenses) and lost earnings from the interruption of production.
- Armstrong sued Bangor Mill for damages caused by the faulty repair.
- A jury found Bangor Mill failed to repair the crankshaft in a workmanlike manner and awarded damages that included fixed operating charges during the shutdown and lost profits.
- Bangor Mill filed a general motion for a new trial, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing the damages were excessive or speculative.

## Issues

1. In a contract to repair essential machinery, is there an implied obligation to perform the repair in a reasonably skillful and workmanlike manner, and did the evidence permit the jury to find a breach?
2. May the owner recover business-interruption damages—lost profits and fixed operating charges incurred during a six-day shutdown—when those losses are shown with reasonable certainty, or were the damages improper or excessive so that a new trial was required?

## Decision

- The court held that Bangor Mill’s agreement to repair the crankshaft carried an implied obligation to do the work in a reasonably skillful and workmanlike manner.
- The court concluded the evidence allowed the jury to find that Bangor Mill did not meet that obligation because the crankshaft was returned in a condition that prevented proper operation and required additional corrective work.
- The court held that the jury could award damages for losses caused by the shutdown, including continuing fixed operating charges and lost profits, so long as they were supported by the evidence and not left to guesswork.
- The court determined the verdict was supported by the evidence and was not so excessive as to require judicial intervention.
- The defendant’s general motion for a new trial was overruled, leaving the plaintiff’s verdict in place.

## Legal Principles

- A party who undertakes repair work as a mechanic impliedly promises to perform the work with reasonable skill and in a workmanlike manner.
- When defective performance causes a temporary business shutdown, the injured party may recover damages that naturally and probably result from the breach and that were within the contemplation of the parties as a likely result of defective repair of essential equipment.
- Lost profits are recoverable if the business is established and the amount of lost profits for the shutdown period is shown with reasonable certainty rather than speculation.
- Fixed or continuing operating charges that necessarily continue during a breach-caused shutdown may be recovered when tied to the shutdown and supported by proof.
- On a general motion for new trial, a verdict will stand when there is evidence supporting liability and the damage award is not so large as to show mistake, passion, or prejudice.

## Conclusion

Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corp. (1929) upheld a jury verdict against a machine shop that returned an essential mill crankshaft in defective condition, recognizing an implied promise of reasonably skillful, workmanlike repair and allowing recovery of shutdown-related lost profits and continuing operating charges when the losses were shown with reasonable certainty and the verdict was not excessive.


Armstrong v. Bangor Mill Supply Corp., 145 A. 741 (1929)