2004), the Court concluded that: (i) a contractor’s material breach excuses the owner from making further payments but (ii) a non-material breach simply gives rise to a claim for damages. The case then went to the Texas Supreme Court. Basically, the appellate court concluded that the Contractor’s breach was not “material” and that the Owner was still on the hook for the contract balance. The appellate court awarded: (i) the Contractor the unpaid contract balance and (ii) the Owner nothing. The Contractor took its case to the court of appeals, and won. The trial court therefore awarded the Owner its repair damages and denied the Contractor’s claim for the contract balance. At trial, the jury and trial court found that both parties breached the contract but that the Contractor breached first. The Owner countersued and argued that it did not have to pay the contract balance because the Contractor breached first. The Contractor sued for the contract balance. The system did not properly cool, and the Owner refused to pay the contract balance.
#Material breach install
2017) (April 28, 2017), Bartush, the owner (“Owner”) of a food manufacturing plant, hired Cimco (“Contractor”) to install a new refrigeration system.
The Texas Supreme Court recently issued an opinion that could impact the next construction project where multiple parties complain about who breached (and who breached first) and whether the parties must continue performing their contractual obligations.
0 kommentar(er)
