Lane Enterprises, Inc. v. L.B. Foster Co.
700 A.2d 465 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party with reasonable grounds for insecurity regarding another party's future performance may demand adequate assurance and may suspend its own performance, including withholding a minor payment, until such assurance is received. The other party's failure to provide such assurance within a reasonable time constitutes a repudiation of the contract.
Facts:
- L.B. Foster Company (Foster) contracted with Lane Enterprises, Inc. (Lane) for Lane to clean and coat bridge components in two stages (Stage I and Stage II) in compliance with Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) specifications.
- During Stage I, Lane encountered difficulties applying the coating, resulting in 'backside contamination' which caused the components to be initially rejected by an ODOT inspector.
- Lane's quality assurance manager sent a letter to Foster detailing the coating problems, expressing an inability to meet what ODOT claimed was a zero-percent contamination standard, and questioning whether Foster wanted Lane to proceed with Stage II.
- Lane agreed to cover the cost of third-party field repairs to the Stage I components, which would be deducted from the final payment Foster owed Lane for Stage I, leaving a balance of $7,082.22.
- After the repairs were completed and ODOT permitted construction to proceed, Foster asked Lane for assurances that it could properly perform Stage II.
- Foster informed Lane it would withhold the final $7,082.22 payment for Stage I until it received such assurances.
- Lane refused to discuss Stage II or provide any assurances until it received the full payment for Stage I.
- Facing potential delays, Foster hired another company to complete Stage II at a cost $42,055.00 higher than its contract price with Lane.
Procedural Posture:
- Foster initiated a suit against Lane by filing a writ of summons in Bedford County.
- Lane initiated a separate suit against Foster by filing a complaint in Cumberland County.
- The two cases were consolidated for trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Bedford County.
- Following a non-jury bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Lane on its counterclaim in the amount of $7,082.22.
- Foster, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate 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:
When one party has reasonable grounds to believe the other party will be unable to perform its future contractual obligations, does withholding a minor final payment from a prior installment while demanding adequate assurance of future performance constitute a material breach of the contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Cirillo, President Judge Emeritus
No. Withholding a minor final payment while demanding adequate assurance does not constitute a material breach when reasonable grounds for insecurity exist. The court found that Foster's withholding of approximately 5% of the total contract price was not a material breach under the five-factor test from Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241, as the amount was small and Foster intended to pay upon receiving assurance. Therefore, Lane was not entitled to suspend its own performance. The court then determined that Lane's performance issues in Stage I, its on-site statements, and its letter expressing doubt about its ability to meet specifications gave Foster reasonable grounds for insecurity under Restatement § 251. Foster was justified in demanding adequate assurance of performance for Stage II. Lane’s refusal to provide such assurance, and instead conditioning future performance on a payment it was not yet due, constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the contract, making Lane the breaching party.
Dissenting - Ford Elliott, J.
The dissent does not address the substantive issue. The author would find that Foster waived all its issues on appeal by failing to file post-trial motions after the trial court's decision, as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1. The rule's purpose is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct its own errors after a decision is rendered. The dissent argues that the majority improperly excused this mandatory procedural step and, therefore, the appeal should have been dismissed without reaching the merits of the contract dispute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interplay between a minor breach (withholding a small payment) and the right to demand adequate assurance of performance under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. The decision establishes that a party's non-material breach does not excuse the other party from its obligations, particularly when the non-breaching party's own prior conduct has created reasonable insecurity. It reinforces that the doctrine of adequate assurance is a powerful tool for a party in an installment contract who fears the other party will not be able to render future performance. This precedent guides parties in determining when they can legitimately suspend performance to demand assurances versus when such suspension would itself be a material breach.
