Blue Ribbon Remodeling Co. v. Meistrich

Hamilton County Municipal Court
709 N.E.2d 1261, 97 Ohio Misc. 2d 8, 1999 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 3 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A contractor who fails to substantially perform a contract, resulting in a breach that renders the contract void, may still recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the permanent benefit conferred upon the other party, less any damages suffered by that party.

Facts:

In November 1994, defendant Meistrich hired plaintiff Blue Ribbon Remodeling to install seven concrete piers to stabilize his apartment buildings.
After work began, a city inspector halted the project because Blue Ribbon lacked the necessary permits and the proposed piers did not meet building code requirements.
On December 29, 1994, the parties entered a second, more expensive contract for twelve piers that would meet code, with a completion date of January 29, 1995. The contract specified it would be "void" if not completed on time, subject to certain excuses.
Blue Ribbon's first subcontractors quit in February 1995, citing dangerous conditions.
Blue Ribbon hired a new subcontractor, Bill Richardson, but failed to provide any concrete to the job site after February 21, 1995.
The work was not completed by the January 29, 1995 deadline or in the months that followed.
On July 1, 1995, Meistrich hired Richardson directly to complete the installation of the piers and to perform additional work.
Blue Ribbon later demanded full payment on its contract, which Meistrich refused.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff Blue Ribbon Remodeling Co. filed a complaint for damages against defendant Meistrich in the Hamilton County Municipal Court, a trial court.
Blue Ribbon's complaint sought recovery based on the contract and, in the alternative, based on quantum meruit.
Meistrich asserted that the contract was void and sought a refund of his $3,000 down payment.
The matter proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Mattingly.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a contractor who breached a contract by failing to complete work by a specified deadline, rendering the contract void by its own terms, entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the value of the partial work completed?

Opinions:

Majority - Elizabeth B. Mattingly, Judge.

Yes. A contractor who breached a contract by failing to complete work by the specified deadline is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the value of the partial work that conferred a permanent benefit on the other party. The court found that time was of the essence in the contract, and Blue Ribbon's failure to complete the project by the January 29, 1995 deadline was not excused. Foreseeable winter weather and the ability to promptly hire a new subcontractor meant the delays were not 'circumstances beyond the control of Blue Ribbon.' The ultimate failure to provide concrete was a factor within Blue Ribbon's control, thus causing the contract to become void by its own explicit terms. However, the court rejected the traditional rule of forfeiture and adopted the modern, more equitable rule for quantum meruit. This rule allows a breaching party to recover the reasonable value of services rendered to prevent the unjust enrichment of the other party. Since Blue Ribbon conferred a permanent benefit on Meistrich by completing four piers, it is entitled to compensation for that value, less the deposit Meistrich had already paid.

Analysis:

This decision exemplifies the judicial trend away from strict, punitive contract remedies and toward more equitable outcomes based on fairness and the prevention of unjust enrichment. By explicitly adopting the 'modern rule' of quantum meruit, the court affirms that even a party in breach can be compensated for valuable work performed, shifting the focus from punishment to restitution. This approach ensures that a non-breaching party does not receive a windfall (a valuable, permanent improvement) for free at the expense of the breaching party. The case serves as a clear precedent for allowing recovery for partial performance that confers a tangible benefit, even when the performance is not 'substantial' and the breach is unexcused.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Blue Ribbon Remodeling Co. v. Meistrich (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature