205 A.2d 211
[No. 56, September Term, 1964.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided December 4, 1964.
CONTRACTS — No Error In Finding That No Contract Existed Between Owner And Flooring Contractor In A Building Operation — Owner Never Promised To Pay Flooring Contractor And Had Paid Builder For Flooring As Per Contract. p. 645
S.K.S.
Decided December 4, 1964.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (TURNBULL, J.).
Action by Artisan Flooring, Inc., contractor, against Daniel and Jeannette Schapiro, for damages for breach of contract in that it installed flooring in a home built for the defendants for which it had not received payment. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
Page 645
Carl A. Durkee, with whom were Wells, Durkee Albert on the brief, for the appellant.
Marvin C. Wahl, with whom was Blanche G. Wahl on the brief, for the appellees.
PER CURIAM.
This case presents a narrow issue as to whether the trial court, sitting without a jury, was in error in finding that no contract had been made between the owner and a flooring contractor in a building operation. The appellees had entered into a written contract with a builder, Proutt, for the construction of a home. When nearly completed, the house burned, and the builder undertook to replace it, including the flooring, on terms similar to those in the first contract. But the owners had been dissatisfied with the flooring, and wished a new subcontractor for that work. A representative of the appellant, Powell, called and discussed the matter with the appellees and the builder, exhibiting samples and quoting prices. Mrs. Schapiro, in Powell’s presence, asked the builder if the price was “all right” and he said it was. Mrs. Schapiro testified she had explained the situation to Powell before he called, and had told him that his bid would have to be approved by the builder.
After the flooring was installed, Powell made several efforts to see Proutt, but never sent him a bill. He admitted that the appellees never promised to pay him. Under all the circumstances we cannot say that the finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 a. Powell knew that Proutt was the builder, and he admitted that the work was not to be paid for until the whole house was completed. It is not disputed that Proutt was paid for the flooring.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Page 646