Albre Marble & Tile Co. v. John Bowen Co.
155 N.E.2d 437 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a contract's performance becomes impossible, a party may recover in quantum meruit for the value of preparatory work specifically requested by the other party, even if not physically incorporated into the final product, particularly when the other party was a contributing factor to the impossibility.
Facts:
- John Bowen Co. Inc. was the general contractor for the construction of the Chronic Disease Hospital and Nurses’ Home for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
- Albre Marble & Tile Co., Inc. (Albre) entered into two subcontracts with Bowen to supply labor and materials for tile and marble work on the project.
- The subcontracts explicitly required Albre to 'furnish and submit all necessary or required samples, shop drawings, tests, affidavits, etc., for approval' to Bowen.
- In reliance on the subcontracts, Albre prepared the required samples, shop drawings, tests, and affidavits.
- Subsequently, a court declared the general contract between Bowen and the Commonwealth invalid, making performance of the subcontracts impossible.
- No tile or marble was ever physically installed or 'wrought into' the structure by Albre before the project was terminated.
Procedural Posture:
- Albre Marble & Tile Co., Inc. (plaintiff) filed an action in the Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court) against John Bowen Co. Inc. (defendant) for breach of contract and quantum meruit.
- Bowen filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the subcontracts were impossible to perform after its general contract was declared invalid.
- The trial court judge allowed Bowen's motion for summary judgment, finding in its favor on all counts.
- Albre (appellant) filed an exception to the trial court's order, bringing the case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of impossibility of performance prevent a subcontractor from recovering in quantum meruit for the value of preparatory work that was specifically requested by the general contractor but not physically incorporated into the structure before the general contract was declared void?
Opinions:
Majority - Spalding, J.
No, the doctrine of impossibility does not prevent recovery under these circumstances. While the general rule in building contracts limits recovery to the value of labor and materials 'wrought into' the structure, an exception exists where a combination of factors makes it just to allow recovery for preparatory expenses. Here, two factors are determinative. First, Bowen's own conduct, while not a breach of contract, was a contributing factor in the general contract's invalidity, meaning its fault was greater than Albre's. Second, the preparatory work was not merely discretionary but was performed at the specific request of Bowen as a term of the subcontracts it drafted. Unlike a situation of pure supervening impossibility like a fire, equity demands that the party who contributed to the impossibility and specifically requested the preparatory work bear the cost of that work.
Analysis:
This decision carves out an important equitable exception to the traditional, strict rule in impossibility cases that only allows recovery for value that has been physically incorporated into a structure. It shifts the analysis from a rigid 'benefit' or 'wrought-in' test to a more flexible, fairness-based inquiry that considers the parties' relative fault and the specific terms of their agreement. By allowing recovery for specifically requested preparatory work when the defendant contributed to the impossibility, the case provides a remedy for subcontractors who incur reliance damages. This holding encourages general contractors to ensure the validity of their primary contracts, as they may be liable for subcontractors' preparatory costs if the project fails due to their own errors.
Unlock the full brief for Albre Marble & Tile Co. v. John Bowen Co.