Kelley v. Hance
142 A. 683 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractor who willfully and without justification abandons a construction contract before substantial performance cannot recover in quasi-contract for the value of the work performed, unless the owner voluntarily accepts the benefits under circumstances that imply a promise to pay.
Facts:
- In September 1926, a plaintiff-contractor and a defendant-property owner entered into a contract for the plaintiff to build a sidewalk and curb for $420.
- The contract stipulated that work would begin within a week and be completed before cold weather.
- The plaintiff did not begin work until December 4, 1926, well after the agreed-upon start time.
- The plaintiff performed only excavation work, removing a strip of earth twelve feet wide and eight feet deep.
- After the excavation, the plaintiff abandoned the job and performed no further work toward completing the contract.
- On March 2, 1927, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he was cancelling the contract.
- The reasonable value of the excavation work performed by the plaintiff was $168.60.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff-contractor sued the defendant-property owner in the City Court of Meriden to recover the value of work performed.
- The defendant filed a counterclaim for the value of earth removed by the plaintiff.
- The trial court found that the defendant was justified in cancelling the contract but awarded the plaintiff $133.68, representing the reasonable value of his work ($168.60) minus $25 in nominal damages for the defendant's counterclaim.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
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 a contractor who willfully abandons a construction contract before substantial performance have a right to recover in quasi-contract for the reasonable value of the work performed, when the owner has not voluntarily accepted the benefits of that work?
Opinions:
Majority - Banks, J.
No. A contractor who willfully abandons a contract without justification cannot recover for the partial work performed. Recovery in quasi-contract is only permitted if the defendant voluntarily accepts the benefit of the partial performance, and mere retention of a benefit that cannot be returned, such as work performed on land, does not constitute such acceptance. The court reasoned that while recovery for partial performance is sometimes allowed for negligent breaches or substantial performance, it is generally denied for a willful, unjustified abandonment. For recovery to be possible in such a case, the owner must have appropriated the benefit under circumstances that raise an implied promise to pay. Unlike retaining goods, which one can choose to return, a property owner cannot return an excavation. Therefore, the owner's mere inaction or continued possession of the land with the unwanted, partial work does not imply acceptance or a promise to pay for it.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law rule that a party who willfully breaches a contract cannot then sue to recover for benefits conferred upon the non-breaching party. It establishes a high bar for recovery by a breaching contractor, requiring an affirmative 'acceptance' by the property owner, not just passive retention of an unreturnable benefit. This protects property owners from being forced to pay for incomplete projects they did not bargain for and creates a strong disincentive for contractors to abandon their contractual obligations. The case draws a critical distinction between benefits that can be returned (like goods) and those that cannot (like improvements to land), clarifying that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply in the latter scenario when the breach is willful.
Unlock the full brief for Kelley v. Hance