Appellees sued appellant for damages, alleging breach of contract for the construction of a residence. The jury verdict and judgment thereon was in favor of appellees in the sum of $2100. A motion for a new trial was overruled and this appeal followed.
Count A of the amended complaint averred that appellant breached his contract with appellees by furnishing and installing heating and air conditioning equipment having smaller capacities for heating and cooling than those provided in the agreed plans and specifications.
Count B of the amended complaint alleged the furnishing of this equipment in smaller capacities than agreed upon, and that appellant falsely represented to appellees that the residence had been completed by him in accordance with the plans and specifications with intent to deceive the appellees and induce them to pay the full contract price for the construction of the residence. The cause was submitted to the jury on both counts along with appellant's plea in short by consent.
Appellant argues assignments of error 3, 5, 7 and 8. All charge error in the refusal of the court to give certain requested written charges.
The charges made the basis of assignments 3 and 7 were adequately and completely covered by the court's oral charge. The refusal of requested charges is not error where they are fully covered by the oral charge of the court. Parkinson v. Hudson, 265 Ala. 4, 88 So.2d 793; Tit. 7, § 273, Code 1940; Ala. Digest, Trial,
Assignment 5 charges error in the refusal of the court to give Charge No. 5, which reads:
Assignment 8 is based upon the refusal to give requested Charge No. 4, which reads:
The appellees had told Burns that they wanted a heating and cooling system like the one in "the Harmon Berger house." The Bergers were friends of appellees and the unit in their home was giving satisfaction. A unit identical to that in the Berger house was installed for appellees, but it did not have the heating or cooling capacity required by the plans and specifications for appellees' house, and this defect was discovered the first winter and summer of occupancy.
There was no meeting of the minds of the parties that the installed unit should be less effective than required by the architect's specifications and Charge 4 was properly refused as being misleading. See Air Conditioning Engineers v. Small, 259 Ala. 171, 65 So.2d 698(9). Moreover, the conversation between appellees and Burns was specifically referred to by the court in the oral charge and this phase of the case was adequately covered therein. Requested Charge No. 4 was correctly refused.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.