Missouri authority allows a property owner to testify as to the value of property, in contexts where one might think that the property owner’s testimony would be excluded as being an expert testimony without proof of the ordinary prerequisites to expert testimony. Oitker v. K.C. Waterproofing addresses such an issue. It seems there were problems with the foundation work done by the contractor.
It seems to be the contractor’s position that the client was not entitled to claim that the promised services were worth at least what the contractor charged. Presumably the contractor would not have expressly disagreed at the time the contract was formed.
Let’s see if the contractor’s discussion of the foundation for the damages computation is “all wet”.
More after the break …