New England Structures, Inc. v. Loranger
234 N.E.2d 888 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that terminates a contract stating a specific reason is not barred from later asserting other, unstated reasons in litigation unless the other party can prove it detrimentally relied on the omission of those unstated reasons.
Facts:
- On July 11, 1961, Theodore Loranger & Sons (Loranger), a general contractor, entered into a subcontract with New England Structures, Inc. (New England) for the installation of a school's roof deck.
- New England began work on November 24, 1961.
- The project architect complained to New England's president about certain aspects of the work on December 14, 1961.
- On December 18, 1961, Loranger sent a telegram to New England terminating its right to proceed with the work as of December 26, 1961.
- The telegram stated the sole reason for termination was New England's 'repeated refusal ... or inability to provide enough properly skilled workmen to maintain satisfactory progress.'
- New England replied by telegram, blaming the delays on Loranger's failure to provide approved drawings.
- There was conflicting evidence regarding the quality of New England's work, including whether metal cross pieces were properly staggered and whether joints were properly welded.
- Loranger subsequently hired another company to complete the roof deck at a cost greater than New England's bid.
Procedural Posture:
- The general contractor, Loranger, sued the subcontractor, New England, in a trial court to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract.
- New England filed a cross-action against Loranger, alleging that Loranger had breached the contract by wrongfully terminating it.
- The two actions were consolidated for trial.
- A jury in the trial court returned a verdict in favor of New England in both cases, awarding New England $16,860.25 in its action against Loranger.
- Loranger, as the appellant, brought the case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on exceptions to the trial judge's jury instructions.
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 party that terminates a contract and provides a single reason for the termination thereby barred from asserting other, unstated reasons as justification during subsequent litigation?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutter, J.
No, a party is not barred from asserting grounds for termination not mentioned in its termination notice unless the other party establishes that it relied to its detriment on the fact that only specific grounds were asserted. The rule preventing a party from 'mending his hold' by changing its reasons after litigation has begun is not absolute. Massachusetts law requires a showing that the other party was misled to its harm or that the terminating party is otherwise estopped. The jury should have been instructed that they could consider Loranger's other justifications for termination, such as improper welding, unless they found as a fact that New England had detrimentally relied on the single reason stated in the telegram. The court also interpreted the contract's five-day notice period not as an opportunity for the subcontractor to cure defects, but as a period to wind down operations by laying off employees and removing equipment.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'mending the hold' doctrine in contract law, rejecting a strict, automatic bar against asserting new reasons for termination during litigation. Instead, it adopts a more flexible standard rooted in the principle of estoppel, requiring proof of detrimental reliance. The ruling emphasizes fairness, ensuring that a party with a valid defense is not precluded from raising it simply due to an initial omission, unless that omission actually harmed the other party. This places the burden on the non-terminating party to prove it was misled to its detriment, impacting how parties will draft and respond to termination notices.
Unlock the full brief for New England Structures, Inc. v. Loranger