Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantappealtrialgood faith
contractplaintiffdefendanttrialgood faith

Related Cases

Barnes v. Michalski, 399 Ill.App.3d 254, 925 N.E.2d 323, 338 Ill.Dec. 826
View Case »
Nalle Clinic Co. v. Parker, 101 N.C.App. 341, 399 S.E.2d 363, 6 IER Cases 158
View Case »
Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951, 14 UCC Rep.Serv. 1318
View Case »
Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank of Whiting, 908 F.2d 1351, 59 USLW 2166, 23 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1118, 20 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1305, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,565
View Case »
Third Story Music, Inc. v. Waits, 41 Cal.App.4th 798, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 747, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 107, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 125
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kreyer v. Driscoll, 39 Wis.2d 540, 159 N.W.2d 680

Facts

The plaintiff, Robert J. Kreyer, entered into an oral contract with defendants Winfred M. Driscoll and Ann Driscoll to construct a home for a total cost of $47,046.62, with completion expected in the fall of 1962. The Driscolls alleged that Kreyer breached the contract by failing to complete significant portions of the work, including plumbing, electrical, heating, tile work, and decorating. The trial court found that Kreyer had substantially performed the contract but deducted amounts for defective work and unreasonable delays, ultimately awarding him $10,967.81. The Driscolls appealed, and Kreyer cross-appealed for interest.

The plaintiff, Robert J. Kreyer, entered into an oral contract with defendants Winfred M. Driscoll and Ann Driscoll to construct a home for a total cost of $47,046.62, with completion expected in the fall of 1962.

Issue

Did the contractor, Robert J. Kreyer, substantially perform the contract for the construction of the home, and is he entitled to recover the contract price or compensation under quantum meruit?

Did the contractor, Robert J. Kreyer, substantially perform the contract for the construction of the home, and is he entitled to recover the contract price or compensation under quantum meruit?

Rule

The doctrine of substantial performance allows a contractor to recover on an uncompleted construction contract if they have made a good faith effort to perform and have substantially performed their agreement. However, if the performance is not substantial, the contractor may only recover under quantum meruit for the value of the services rendered.

The doctrine of substantial performance allows a contractor to recover on an uncompleted construction contract if they have made a good faith effort to perform and have substantially performed their agreement.

Analysis

The court analyzed the extent of Kreyer's performance and found that he left significant portions of the work unfinished, including half of the plumbing, electrical, and heating work, as well as all linoleum and a quarter of the decorating. The court concluded that such incomplete work did not meet the standard for substantial performance, which requires a contractor to complete the work in accordance with the contract's terms. Therefore, Kreyer was not entitled to recover under the contract but could seek compensation for the value of the work performed under the theory of quantum meruit.

The court analyzed the extent of Kreyer's performance and found that he left significant portions of the work unfinished, including half of the plumbing, electrical, and heating work, as well as all linoleum and a quarter of the decorating.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Kreyer was not entitled to recover on the contract due to his lack of substantial performance but could recover under quantum meruit. The request for interest was deemed moot, and costs were denied to both parties.

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Kreyer was not entitled to recover on the contract due to his lack of substantial performance but could recover under quantum meruit.

Who won?

The defendants, Winfred M. Driscoll and Ann Driscoll, prevailed in the case because the court found that the contractor did not substantially perform the contract and was therefore not entitled to recover the contract price.

The defendants, Winfred M. Driscoll and Ann Driscoll, prevailed in the case because the court found that the contractor did not substantially perform the contract and was therefore not entitled to recover the contract price.

You must be