Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/449

 "In an action for a breach of building contract for alleged improper construction the owner's measure of damages is the difference between the value of the building when constructed and what its value would have been if constructed according to the contract and with reasonably sound material and reasonably skillful labor." Hartford Mill Co. v. Hartford Tobacco Warehouse Co., 121 S. W. 477 (Ky.).

"The measure of damages is the difference between the value of the house as finished and the house as it ought to have been finished under the contract, plans and specifications." Small v. Lee Bros. 61 S. E. 831 (Ga.); Norcoss Bros. v. Vose, 81 N. E. 468; Fleming v. Lunsford, 163 Ala. 540; 50 So. 921.

Sinness & Duffy, for appellant.

"If a person accepts and adopts a written contract, even though it is not signed by him, he is deemed to have assented to its terms and conditions and to be bound by thẹm." 6 R. C. L. 642.

"Signature is not always essential to the binding force of an agreement. The object of a signature is to show mutuality or assent, but these. facts may be shown in other ways; and unless a contract is required by statute or arbitrary rule to be in writing, it need not be signed, provided it is accepted and acted upon. * * * Further it is competent for the parties to adopt it as their contract without signing it, provided their intention to do so is clear." 13 C. J. 303; Ramsay Realty Co. v. Ramsey (Iowa) I13 N. W. 468; Fortham v. Peters (Ill.) 69 N. E. 97; Kim v. Walters, (S. D.) 133 N. W. 277; Reed v. Coughran (S. D.) II N. W. 550; Henderson v. Henderson (Iowa) 114 N. W. 178; Muscatine Water Works Co. v. Muscatine Lumber Co. (Ia.) 52 N. W. 108; Merritt v. Adams Co. Land Co. 29 N. D. 496; Griffin v. Bristle (Minn.) 40 N. W. 523; Hefferman v. Davis, (Cal.) 140 Pac. 716; Bloom v. Hazzard, (Cal.) 37 Pac. 1037; Leonard v. Howard, (Ore.) 135 Pac. 549; Ullsberger v. Meyer, (Ill.) 75 N. W. 482; McPherson v. Fargo, (S. D.) 74 N. W. 1057.

The Court said, "If it (the school building) cannot be remedied, then the defendant is entitled to a judgment for the amount it paid." That is not the law. Handy v. Bliss, 204 Mass. 513; 90 N. E. 864; 134 Am. St. Rep. 673.

, C. J. This is an action to recover $3,486.40, the balance of the contract price about $9,241.40, and $877.68 for alleged extra work,