Empathy List Archives

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury
instructions
From: <lan@lwwhiteattorney.com <mailto:lan@lwwhiteattorney.com> >
Date: Wed, April 18, 2012 1:06 pm
To: "'RPPTL constructionlaw'" <constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org> >

These cites and summaries should help.

Substantial performance applies when actual performance is nearly equivalent to what was bargained for, so that owner can use the property for the intended purpose.  J. M. Beeson Co. v. Sartori, 553 So.2d 180 (Fla 4 DCA 1989); Strategic Resources Group, Inc. v. Knight Ridder, Inc., 870 So.2d 846 (Fla 3 DCA 2003); Waters v. International Precious Metals Corp., 273 F3d 1273 (11th Cir 2001).

Casa Linda Tile & Marble Installers, Inc. v. Highlands Place 1981, Ltd., 642 So.2d 766 (Fla. 4 DCA 1994).   The DCA noted that where a contractor has substantially performed and otherwise complied with the construction lien statute, it is entitled to award on its mechanic’s lien claim for the contract price less all damages caused by its failure to render full performance.  Substantial performance is defined as that performance of a contract which while not full performance is so nearly equivalent to what was bargained for that it would be unreasonable to deny the promisee the full contract price subject to the promisor’s right to recover whatever damages may have been occasioned him by the promisor’s failure to render full performance.

Kenmark Construction, Inc. v. Michael Cronin, 765 So.2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).  The contractor sued the owner for foreclosure of a construction lien.  The owner counterclaimed seeking damages for breach of contract.  The trial court stated it doubted whether the contractor built the house in a proper and workmanlike manner or that the owner would be able to use the house in the way he wanted.  Nevertheless, the trial court entered judgment of foreclosure in favor of the contractor.  The trial court, however, declined to award attorney’s fees to either party.  HELD: Reversed as to denial of attorney’s fees.  It is well settled that judgment on a construction lien requires a determination of substantial performance rather than strict performance, citing Poranski v. Millings, 82 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1955).  The trial judge’s decision is consistent with a determination of substantial performance and did not find a breach of contract by the contractor.

Lockhart v. Worsham, 508 So.2d 411 (Fla 1 DCA 1987).  Worsham, the general contractor, was doing a kitchen and porch remodeling and installing a built up roof.  The cabinets were not sufficient deep and the dishwasher protruded into the space where a drawer would otherwise open.  The roof was to have been 5 ply insulated, but the contractor installed only a 3 ply roof, with no insulation.  The trial court found that the contractor had breached the contract, but that the contractor had attempted in good faith to correct the items and its breach was not willful or intentional.  Accordingly, the trial court only awarded a nominal amount to cut a piece out of the drawer to allow it to open despite the protruding dishwasher and simply allowed a credit for the missing insulation.  The home owner then appealed.  HELD: Reversed.  While the trial court was correct in finding that the contract was breached, it appears the trial court wrongfully intended to apply the doctrine of substantial performance.  However, that doctrine is applicable only where a variance from the specifications of the contract is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work performed is substantially what was bargained for.  Under these facts the doctrine should not be applied.  The measure of damages accruing to the homeowner is the reasonable cost of making the work conform to the contract.

The Lockhart holding reflects a view under prior law that residences were exceptions to the substantial performance doctrine.   That view is no longer the law, and is tempered by the Economic Waste Doctrine, which applies to situations where the cost of correcting the deficiencies is grossly disproportionate to the value of the completed structure. In such circumstances, the damages can be measured by the difference in value of the structure contracted for and the structure received, as opposed to the cost of correcting the deficiencies. 

Grossman Holdings, Ltd v. Hourihan, 414 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1982). - house built facing the wrong direction so owner didn’t get the intended view.  Court held that “[f]or defective or unfinished construction, a plaintiff can recover a judgment for either:

(1) The reasonable cost of construction and completion in accordance with the contract,

if this is possible and does not involve unreasonable economic waste; or

(2) The difference between the value that the product contracted for would have had and

the value of the performance that has been received by the plaintiff, if the construction

and completion in accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable economic

waste.

Aponte v. Exotic Pools, Inc., 699 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). 

Where the performance on a contract is defective, the proper measure of damages is the reasonable cost of making the performed work conform to the contract. This maxim is subject to the exception that, where construction in accordance with the contract would involve unreasonable economic waste, the measure of damage for defective construction is the difference between the value of the item contracted for and the value of the performance

received.

Regards,

Lan White

(727) 797-5599

From: constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org>  [mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org <mailto:constructionlaw-bounces@lists.flabarrpptl.org> ] On Behalf Of Fitzsimmons, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:09 AM
To: RPPTL constructionlaw; jim@mccraelaw.com <mailto:jim@mccraelaw.com> 
Subject: Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] Construction Defect jury instructions

Does anyone have a set they are willing to share?

Also, can anyone identify a case stating that an owner is not entitled to a "perfect" building?

Thanks.

constructionlaw@lists.flabarrpptl.org

Re: [RPPTL-constructionlaw] [RPPTL-constructionlaw QUESTION BUT LOOKING FOR A VERY SPECIFIC CASE ONLY