Reference no: EM131657618

Question: Hart entered into a contract with Brad Smith Roofing on October 16, 2000, for the company to install gutters and replace, prime, and paint the facia board on two buildings he owned, for the price of $1,073. Hart then paid $300 as a deposit on the contract. Brad Smith Roofing never began performance, and, in April 2001, Hart wrote to the company requesting a schedule of completion and also informing it of his intention to seek another bid if it failed to respond. Having received no reply to this letter, Hart then obtained a bid for the gutter work from Broadview Roofing & Remodeling, Inc., for the price of $1,375. He again wrote to Brad Smith Roofing in June 2001, notifying it of his receipt of that bid and his intention to have Broadview perform the work unless Brad Smith Roofing started performance as contracted, as well as his intention to hold it liable for the differences in the contract prices. Subsequently, Broadviewdid the gutter work for Hart in October 2001, for which Hart paid $1,375. Hart then sued Brad Smith Roofing, seeking damages in the amount of $602. After a hearing, a magistrate filed a report awarding Hart $300 for his deposit only, but denying recovery on the $302 damages claim. Was this a correct ruling?