## Facts

- A contractor entered a special written contract to build a church according to specified plans and dimensions.
- After completion, the church took possession and used the building.
- The building deviated from the specifications, including a lower ceiling, smaller windows, and narrower seating than required.
- The contractor acted in good faith and without fraud, and the building remained reasonably suitable for the church’s needs.
- The church refused to pay the full contract price and sought to prove the cost to reconstruct or alter the building to conform exactly to the contract.
- The trial court allowed the contractor to recover, deducting only the diminution in value caused by the deviations, and excluded evidence of the full cost of reconstruction.

## Issues

1. In a special building contract substantially performed in good faith and accepted for use by the owner, is the proper measure of the owner’s damages the cost to achieve exact compliance, or the diminution in value from the deviations?
2. Did the trial court err by excluding evidence of the cost to reconstruct or alter the building to meet the contract specifications?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut affirmed.
- The contractor could recover the contract price reduced by the diminution in value attributable to the deviations.
- Excluding evidence of the full cost of reconstructing or altering the building to achieve literal compliance was proper where that measure would be disproportionate in relation to the defects and would effectively deny compensation despite good-faith performance and continued use by the owner.

## Legal Principles

- When a contractor substantially performs a building contract in good faith and the owner accepts and uses the structure, the contractor is not barred from recovery solely because performance is not exact.
- Damages may be measured by the cost to correct defects when correction can be achieved at reasonable expense.
- When strict compliance would require extensive reconstruction or unreasonable expense relative to the benefit gained, damages are measured by the diminution in value caused by the deviations, and cost-of-reconstruction evidence may be excluded as an improper measure.

## Conclusion

The court held that a good-faith builder who delivers a usable structure accepted and used by the owner may recover the contract price less the diminution in value from contract deviations, and that damages should not be based on costly reconstruction that is disproportionate to the defects.


Pinches v. Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church, 55 Conn. 183, 10 A. 264 (Conn. 1887)