O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope case brief summary
529 S.W.2d 258 (1975)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff homeowner sued defendant roofing company to set aside a mechanic's lien filed by defendant and for damages for breach of contract alleging that defendant failed to perform a contract to install a new roof on plaintiff's home. Defendant filed a cross-claim alleging plaintiff breached the contract by failing to pay. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, set aside the mechanic's lien and denied defendant recovery on the cross-claim.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
Court affirmed order awarding damages to plaintiff homeowner for breach of contract, denying recovery on defendant's cross-claim for breach and setting aside defendant's mechanic's lien where plaintiff contracted for something which exactly satisfied her, expressed those wishes to defendant and should not have had to accept something else.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
529 S.W.2d 258 (1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant roofing company appealed an
order of the Bexar County Circuit Court (Texas) which awarded
plaintiff homeowner damages for breach of contract, denied recovery
to defendant on a cross-claim for breach of contract and set aside a
mechanic's lien filed by defendant.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff homeowner sued defendant roofing company to set aside a mechanic's lien filed by defendant and for damages for breach of contract alleging that defendant failed to perform a contract to install a new roof on plaintiff's home. Defendant filed a cross-claim alleging plaintiff breached the contract by failing to pay. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff, set aside the mechanic's lien and denied defendant recovery on the cross-claim.
DISCUSSION
- The appellate court affirmed holding defendant failed to substantially perform on the contract.
- It said that plaintiff contracted for something which exactly satisfied her, expressed those wishes to defendant and should not have been compelled to accept something else.
- The court said that the defendant did not have license to install whatever in his judgment was "just as good" as the contract for which plaintiff bargained.
CONCLUSION
Court affirmed order awarding damages to plaintiff homeowner for breach of contract, denying recovery on defendant's cross-claim for breach and setting aside defendant's mechanic's lien where plaintiff contracted for something which exactly satisfied her, expressed those wishes to defendant and should not have had to accept something else.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Contract Law
Shop for Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment