Tolar Construction v. Kean Electric Company

944 So.2d 138 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was a general contractor on a school job. D put out bids for subcontractors. P got the electrical work and signed a contract with D. D was to pay P $230,000 for P’s services upon completion and acceptance of the electrical work. The date specified in the subcontract for P's completion of the electrical work was January 18, 2001. The project proceeded smoothly until November when the Board of Education informed D that the roof work was an issue. More than a month elapsed before the roof situation was resolved. The scheduled electrical work was delayed. During the delay, P sent just a few individuals each day to complete what little work could be accomplished pending resolution of the roof problem. D had to begin construction of a second roof. Weather conditions delayed this work until January 3, 2001, when D was finally able to begin removing the roof underlayment. P began devoting more manpower to the electrical work. The roof delay rendered impossible P's completion of its work by January 18, 2001. Dissatisfaction and frustration ensued until D notified P that the work needed to be completed by the afternoon of May 3. On May 14, D fired P and ordered P 'to get off the job and do not come back.' Other than $3,000 paid to P, D never paid for the work. P sued D for breach of contract and fraud. D filed a counterclaim alleging that P had breached the subcontract. P presented evidence about the sum that was supposed to be paid upon completion and evidence of how much work was actually completed. the agreed-to sum was $226,975 but, according to testimony by P, this was later increased to $230,331.82. The jury returned a verdict in favor of P on both its breach-of-contract claim and D's breach-of-contract counterclaim, and awarded $88,652.27 in compensatory damages, 'plus attorney fees, litigation costs, and interest to be determined by the Court.' The trial court denied D's motion for a new trial. Both parties appealed. D argues in part that the damages awarded by the jury were excessive.