Mobile Turnkey Housing, Inc. v. Ceafco, Inc. Ex Rel. Miller
294 Ala. 707, 321 So.2d 186, 1975 Ala. LEXIS 1274 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A promise to pay additional compensation for the performance of work that a party is already legally obligated to perform under an existing contract is unenforceable for lack of consideration, particularly when the contract explicitly allocates the risk of the unforeseen difficulties that prompted the new promise.
Facts:
- Commercial Contractors, Inc. (Commercial) was the general contractor for a housing project and hired Ceafco, Inc. (Ceafco) as a subcontractor for grading and site work under a lump-sum contract.
- The written subcontract explicitly stated that Ceafco had visited the site, was aware of potential 'latent subsurface conditions,' and agreed the lump-sum price was full compensation regardless of any conditions encountered.
- During performance, Ceafco encountered soil that could not be compacted as required, necessitating large amounts of expensive borrow fill to complete the job.
- Ceafco ceased work due to the cost of dealing with the poor soil conditions.
- At a subsequent meeting, Commercial orally promised to pay Ceafco for the extra cost of the borrow fill to induce Ceafco to resume work.
- Relying on Commercial's oral promise, Ceafco completed the site work.
- After the project was completed, Commercial refused to pay Ceafco the additional compensation.
- The original contract also contained a specific provision for extra payment for 'undercutting' required due to unsatisfactory material, indicating the parties had contemplated this type of contingency.
Procedural Posture:
- Ceafco, Inc. sued Commercial Contractors, Inc. and its subsidiary, Mobile Turnkey Housing, Inc., in the state trial court (Circuit Court) to enforce an oral promise for additional payment and to establish a lien.
- The trial court, advised by a jury, found that Commercial's new promise to pay was supported by valid consideration under the 'unforeseeable difficulties exception' to the pre-existing duty rule.
- The trial court entered a final decree and a judgment in favor of Ceafco in the amount of $112,929.75.
- Commercial Contractors, Inc. and Mobile Turnkey Housing, Inc., as appellants, appealed the trial court's decree to the state's highest 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 general contractor's subsequent oral promise to pay a subcontractor additional compensation for encountering difficult subsurface conditions constitute an enforceable contract modification when the original written contract already required the subcontractor to perform the work regardless of such conditions?
Opinions:
Majority - Almon, Justice
No. A promise to pay for work that a party is already contractually obligated to perform is unenforceable for lack of consideration under the pre-existing duty rule. The court reasoned that the written subcontract was unambiguous and expressly placed the risk of 'latent subsurface conditions' on Ceafco. Therefore, the difficult soil conditions could not be legally considered 'unforeseeable difficulties' that would provide an exception to the pre-existing duty rule. The contract even included a clause for extra payment for 'undercutting,' which demonstrated that the parties had specifically contemplated and provided for the contingency of encountering unsatisfactory material. Allowing enforcement of the subsequent oral promise would permit a party to use their own refusal to perform as a coercive force to extract a higher price, which the law deems a 'nudum pactum' (a bare, unenforceable promise).
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the traditional pre-existing duty rule in contract modification, signaling a judicial reluctance to apply the 'unforeseen difficulties' exception when a contract is clear and allocates specific risks. It highlights the paramount importance of precise contract drafting; the court's decision hinged on the clause where the subcontractor explicitly assumed the risk of adverse subsurface conditions. The ruling serves as a precedent against using economic duress or a 'hold-up' strategy during performance, thereby protecting parties from being coerced into paying more for a benefit they were already entitled to receive under the original agreement.
