Appalachian Power Co. v. John Stewart Walker, Inc.
Virginia Supreme Court
214 Va. 524 (1974)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Appalachian Power Co. (defendant) conducted a promotion program granting property developers a credit against the cost of installing underground (as opposed to overhead) electrical service. The effect was to make installation free of charge if the credit exceeded the cost. In 1969, Appalachian Power orally agreed to install underground electrical lines in a subdivision developed by John Stewart Walker, Inc. (Walker) (plaintiff). Appalachian Power also agreed to provide written confirmation of the agreement, but this never occurred. In 1970, the state corporation commission ruled that such utility promotions were unlawful. Walker filed an action against Appalachian Power for breach of Appalachian Power’s alleged duty to install the underground lines free of charge. Walker’s evidence showed that lack of underground lines reduced the value of the subdivision by $8,000. Appalachian Power’s evidence showed that the cost of installation would have been $3,546. The trial court found that Appalachian Power was in breach due to its failure to reduce the agreement to writing within a reasonable time. The court awarded damages of $6,000 based on a value assessment. Appalachian Power appealed, arguing in part that the damages should have been assessed according to cost of installation rather than value.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Poff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.