It is agreed that plaintiffs were to process and clean wearing apparel and other merchandise delivered to them by tbe defendant and were to be paid at a stipulated rate. Plaintiffs allege and offer evidence tending to show that defendant has not paid them in full for tbe services rendered under tbe agreement. They seek recovery for tbe balance due. Defendant alleges and offers evidence tending to show that plaintiffs failed to properly process tbe articles received by them; that tbe Army “turned down” or rejected tbe work thus improperly done; that as a result be was required to make additional trips to tbe Army camps and to reprocess and clean such articles at great cost to him; and that be has paid plaintiffs for all work done and services rendered, including tbe charges for tbe articles improperly and insufficiently processed and cleaned. He seeks to recover expenses incurred by reason of tbe alleged breach of contract.
On this conflicting evidence tbe court twice instructed tbe jury to tbe effect that if they answered tbe first issue in favor of plaintiffs, in any amount, they should not consider or answer the second issue, on tbe theory that an affirmative answer to tbe first issue would constitute a finding that tbe contract was as contended by plaintiffs and plaintiffs bad fully complied therewith.
*173Some time after tbey bad begun tbeir deliberations tbe court recalled tbe jury and stated to tbem tbat it erred in instructing tbem not to consider tbe second issue in tbe event tbey answered tbe first issue in any amount, and charged tbem as follows:
“No matter wbat you answer tbe first issue, you will consider tbe second issue, and, as I say, you will apply tbe same law to tbe second issue tbat I gave you, to begin witb.”
Wbat, tben, bad tbe court instructed tbe jury as to tbe law applicable to tbis issue? Tbe record discloses tbe following:
“Now, gentlemen of tbe jury, tbe Court instructs you, on tbis second issue, if you answer tbe first issue in any amount, you will bave found tbat tbe .contract was as tbe plaintiffs contend, by tbe greater weight of tbe evidence, and you would bave allowed tbem a reasonable amount for tbis processing of tbe clothing; and, if you come to tbis second issue, gentlemen of tbe jury, tbe Court instructs you, as a matter of law, tbat tbe defendant would not be entitled to recover anything except wbat a breach of tbe contract has cost him; and, if you come to tbe second issue, tbe defendant would not be paying tbe plaintiffs any amount for any processing of tbe clothing and be would not be entitled to recover tbe full amount of wbat it cost him to clean and press tbe clothing, because be has testified tbat be has been paid by tbe Government for tbe processing and cleaning, but only such damages as flow immediately from tbe breach of tbe contract.”
Defendant’s exception thereto must be sustained.
Tbe court in tbe quoted charge inadvertently-failed to go further and explain wbat elements of damage would enter into and be embraced by “wbat a breach of tbe contract would cost him.” It expressly excluded expenses incurred in reprocessing articles not cleaned or processed in accord witb agreed specifications. It failed to correct tbis inadvertence elsewhere in its charge.
Furthermore, non constat defendant may not bave settled in full for all services rendered.by plaintiffs, it still may be true, as be testified, tbat be has paid tbem for work tbey failed to do in accord witb tbe terms of tbe contract. It does not follow as a matter of law tbat an affirmative answer to tbe first issue would constitute a finding by tbe jury tbat tbe contract was as plaintiffs contend. Nor does such a finding compel tbe conclusion tbat plaintiffs are not required to account for money received for services tbey failed to render. If tbe controverted issue as to tbe alleged breach of contract is resolved against tbem, tben defendant is entitled to recover tbe losses which naturally and proximately resulted from tbe nonperformance and which were reasonably in tbe minds of tbe parties at tbe time of its making. Monger v. Lutterloh, 195 N. C., 274 (279), 142 S. E., 12, and cases cited.
*174The record fails to justify the conclusion the parties did not contemplate that a breach of the contract by plaintiffs would cause defendant to incur additional expense in reprocessing the merchandise to meet the ■ requirements of the Army and additional trips in transporting the same to and from the Army camps.
This is not affected by the fact defendant has been paid by the Government for the processing and cleaning. On his testimony the breach of contract by plaintiffs compelled him to reprocess, at considerable expense, merchandise they agreed to clean and for the processing of which he has paid them at the agreed rate. If this be true and the jury so finds, the plaintiffs, in the settlement between the parties, must compensate defendant, under the prevailing rule or measure of damages for breach of contract, for the loss he has sustained by reason of their failure to comply with the terms of their agreement.
The disposition we have made of this appeal renders it unnecessary for us to discuss other exceptive assignments of error appearing in the record.
For the reasons stated there must be a
New trial.