Nathan

The judgment, which plaintiff recovered in this action, was for the balance due on its contract to remodel a fashion shop, less deductions made because of the faulty quality of the work done. The bone of contention on this appeal is an item of |350 which was deducted because of the installation of imperfect mirrors. The court found that there were “twenty-six defective mirrors, which are valueless and cannot be repaired” and that by reason thereof defendants had been damaged in the sum of $350. Plaintiff contends, rightly, we think, that the evidence does not support this finding.

Both appellant and respondent have argued the case upon the theory that the principles applicable are to be found in the law of sales. They are agreed, as expressed in respondent’s brief: “If the thing retained has any value, the recovery of the respondents for damages may and should be reduced accordingly”. We have looked through the bill of exceptions for evidence which would support the finding that these twenty-six mirrors, which were retained, have no value, by which should be understood “market value”, of course (Dean v. Hawes, (1916) 29 Cal. App. 689, 693 [ 157 Pac. 558 ]). They may be so…