## Facts

- A homeowner contracted with a roofing contractor to install a new roof and make related repairs for $225.
- The contractor delivered materials and began work, but stopped after a few hours due to inclement weather.
- The contractor did not return to the job and later removed the materials from the site.
- The homeowner hired a different roofing company to complete the project for $582.26.
- The replacement work included more extensive and higher-grade performance than the original contract (including a roof of greater ply than originally contemplated).
- The homeowner sued for breach of contract and sought $357.26, representing the difference between the two contract prices.
- At trial, the contractor claimed the homeowner ordered him to discontinue; the homeowner denied doing so.
- After a bench trial, the court found the contractor breached the contract and awarded $357.26 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the contractor breached the roofing contract.
2. Whether, after breach, the homeowner could recover the full difference between the original contract price and the higher price of a replacement contract that included additional and superior work.

## Decision

- The breach finding was affirmed because the dispute turned on credibility and fact-finding, and the record supported the trial court’s determination.
- The damages award was reversed because the trial court treated the two contracts as substantially the same despite evidence that the replacement contract required additional and higher-quality work.
- The case was remanded for a new determination of damages limited to the extra cost of completing the same work contemplated by the original contract, over and above the original contract price.

## Legal Principles

- A completion/cover contract price differential is an appropriate measure of damages only if the substitute contract calls for the same work contemplated by the original agreement.
- Contract damages must be limited to losses that are the natural consequence and proximate result of the breach.
- Damages are compensatory and may not place the nonbreaching party in a better position than performance would have provided.
- When a contractor abandons performance, the nonbreaching party may recover only the reasonable added cost to complete the same work required by the original contract, excluding costs attributable to upgrades or expanded scope.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the finding that the contractor abandoned the job and breached the contract, but held that the homeowner could not recover the entire price difference where the replacement contract included improvements beyond the original bargain; damages had to be recalculated to reflect only the additional cost of completing equivalent work.


Thorne v. White, 103 A.2d 579 (D.C. Mun. Ct. App. 1954)