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

contractbreach of contractdamagesplea
contractdamagesplea

Related Cases

Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852, 39 UCC Rep.Serv. 1705
View Case »
Ashley County, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659
View Case »
Hickson Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 260 F.3d 559, 2001 Fed.App. 0257P
View Case »
Barriffe v. Estate of Nelson, 153 So.3d 613
View Case »
Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Conditioning, Inc., 139 Idaho 233, 76 P.3d 977, 51 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 303
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Landis v. William Fannin Builders, Inc., 193 Ohio App.3d 318, 951 N.E.2d 1078, 2011-Ohio-1489

Facts

In 2004, Steve Landis and Nancy Weidman contracted with Fannin Builders to construct a custom home in Pleasantville, Ohio, specifying T1–11 siding with a semitransparent stain of their choice. After construction, the siding was installed with a noticeable color variance due to improper staining by the subcontractor, leading to a patchwork appearance. Despite attempts to remedy the issue, including a second coat of stain, the problem persisted, prompting the purchasers to file suit for breach of contract.

In 2004, Landis and his wife, Weidman, decided to build a custom home on land that Landis owned in Pleasantville, Ohio. After interviewing three builders, they chose Fannin Builders to construct their home.

Issue

Did the builder breach the contract by failing to install the siding in a workmanlike manner, and are the purchasers entitled to damages despite the builder's claims of a right to cure?

Did the builder breach the contract by failing to install the siding in a workmanlike manner, and are the purchasers entitled to damages despite the builder's claims of a right to cure?

Rule

A builder has an implied duty to perform work in a workmanlike manner, and damages for breach of contract are typically measured by the cost to repair or replace defective work.

Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.

Analysis

The court determined that Fannin Builders breached its implied duty by failing to provide siding with a uniform color, which did not meet industry standards. The court rejected the builder's argument that the purchasers' refusal to allow a cure precluded their recovery, stating that the breach was not related to the limited warranty but to the construction contract itself. The court found that the appropriate measure of damages was the cost to replace the siding, as this would adequately compensate the purchasers for the builder's failure to meet the contract specifications.

In the case at bar, the parties do not dispute that the evidence establishes that Fannin Builders fell below local industry standards in constructing a house with siding of such disparate color.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the purchasers, awarding them $66,906.24 for the cost to replace the mismatched siding and denying the builder's counterclaim.

Affirmed.

Who won?

Purchasers, Steve Landis and Nancy Weidman, prevailed because the court found that the builder breached the contract by failing to install the siding in a workmanlike manner.

Purchasers, Steve Landis and Nancy Weidman, prevailed because the court found that the builder breached the contract by failing to install the siding in a workmanlike manner.

You must be