Nelson v. Hazel
Idaho Supreme Court
91 Idaho 850, 433 P.2d 120 (1967)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Homeowners John and Margaret Hazel (defendants) entered into a construction contract with contractor Elton Nelson (plaintiff) for a remodeling job. Nelson did not substantially complete the job but expended labor and materials worth about $5,100. The Hazels paid almost $2,000 on the contract and refused to pay more due to defects in the construction work. Nelson sued the Hazels for damages. According to experts, it would cost the Hazels between $2,000 and $2,300 to repair or correct defects in the roof, floors, and wall, and the Hazels had paid $194.50 to repair their chimney. The court found that Nelson could recover his labor and materials of about $5,100, less the amount the Hazels had already paid on the contract. The court further found that the Hazels were entitled to recover $2,494.50 as the cost to repair the defects, plus interest and court costs, which was set off against Nelson’s recovery. The Hazels appealed, arguing that Nelson was not entitled to any recovery on the contract due to his failure to substantially perform.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 949,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,400 briefs, keyed to 1,004 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.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
