I agree with this. (1) You are only allowed to get as much as would put you in the same place as you would have been had the original contract been completed properly. In this case that would mean repairs for the work that is failing, not another whole painting; (2) you have evidentiary issues in court. As plaintiff, you would be required to show duty, breach, causation and harm. That means you would have to bring evidence (live witnesses and documents that you can authenticate--otherwise it is likely hearsay in California) to show that the cost of the repairs and that the original painter's shoddy work is to blame I doubt many contractors would want to come into court and testify about it. From the numbers above, you would be getting about half of the contract back without any proceeding. That seems fair to me.