## Facts

- The Freemans paid Duhamel $190 to perform a pre-purchase inspection of a home they were considering buying.
- Before hiring Duhamel, the Freemans noticed the kitchen floor sagged.
- Duhamel’s inspection did not identify that the sagging was caused by faulty, makeshift support columns under the kitchen floor.
- Relying on the inspection, the Freemans purchased the home.
- After the purchase, the Freemans discovered the defective support columns and sued Duhamel for breach of contract arising from the inspection.
- At trial, three witnesses offered different repair-cost estimates:
  - A structural engineer testified it would cost $500 to repair the existing support columns.
  - A second structural engineer testified it would cost $5,000 to repair the columns and level the kitchen floor.
  - A contractor estimated $18,320 to repair the columns, level the floor, and install new kitchen cabinets.
- The Freemans introduced evidence that leveling the floor would likely prevent reinstalling the existing cabinets in their original locations and argued their damages should include cabinet replacement.
- The trial court found Duhamel breached the inspection contract but limited damages to the amount needed to repair the existing support columns because the sagging floor was observable when the Freemans bought the home.
- Both Duhamel and the Freemans appealed.

## Issues

1. When a home inspector breaches an inspection contract by failing to identify a hidden structural cause of an observed condition, is the proper measure of damages limited to the reasonable cost to repair the hidden defect, or may it include additional work to level the floor and replace cabinets?
2. Does the buyer’s pre-purchase awareness of the sagging floor restrict recovery to the incremental loss tied to the undisclosed faulty supports?

## Decision

- The court upheld the finding that Duhamel breached the inspection contract by failing to discover and report the faulty makeshift support columns.
- The court limited the Freemans’ recovery to the reasonable cost of repairing the existing supports (the $500 measure).
- The court declined to award the additional amounts sought for leveling the kitchen floor and replacing cabinets.

## Legal Principles

- Contract damages aim to place the injured party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed, but not in a better position.
- When the buyer is aware of an observable condition before purchase, damages for an inspector’s failure to identify its hidden cause may be confined to the cost to correct the undisclosed defect, rather than the full cost of eliminating the visible condition and related remodeling.
- In an inspection-contract case, the recoverable repair measure may be limited to the least costly reasonable repair that addresses the defect the inspector should have reported.

## Conclusion

Freeman v. Duhamel holds that although a home inspector may be liable for breaching an inspection contract by missing faulty, makeshift supports causing a sagging kitchen floor, the buyer’s damages may be limited to the reasonable cost to fix that hidden defect—here, $500—where the sagging condition itself was apparent before the purchase and the requested additional work (leveling and cabinet replacement) would go beyond curing the undisclosed defect.


Freeman v. Duhamel, 1997 WL 524119 (1997)