O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope
529 S.W.2d 258 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractor does not substantially perform a contract if the work contains defects so pervasive that they frustrate the contract's purpose and can only be remedied by redoing the entire job. In contracts concerning a person's home, aesthetic quality can be an essential purpose of the contract, not merely a functional one.
Facts:
- Mrs. Fred M. Cope entered into a written contract with O. W. Grun Roofing & Construction Co. for the installation of a new roof on her home for $648.00.
- The contract specified the shingles would be 'russet glow,' which was intended to be a uniform brown varied color.
- After Grun Roofing installed the roof, Cope observed that it had yellow streaks on multiple sides due to a difference in the color or shade of some shingles.
- Grun Roofing attempted to fix the issue by removing the nonconforming shingles and replacing them.
- However, the replacement shingles did not match the remainder of the roof, resulting in a roof that was not of uniform color and had the appearance of being patched.
- Even after nine to ten months, the roof remained 'streaky' on three of its four sides.
- Evidence suggested that the only way to achieve a roof of uniform color as contracted for would be to install a completely new one.
- The installed roof was otherwise structurally sound and provided protection from the elements.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Fred M. Cope sued O. W. Grun Roofing & Construction Co. in a Texas trial court to set aside a mechanic's lien and for damages.
- Grun Roofing filed a cross-claim against Cope for the contract price of $648.00 and to foreclose on the lien.
- A jury found that Grun Roofing failed to perform in a workmanlike manner and did not substantially perform the contract.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding Cope $122.60 in damages, setting aside the lien, and denying Grun Roofing's recovery on its cross-claim.
- Grun Roofing (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals (appellee is Cope).
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 substantially perform a contract for the installation of a new roof of a uniform color when the resulting roof has non-uniform color streaks that give it a 'patched' appearance and can only be corrected by completely replacing the roof?
Opinions:
Majority - Cadena, Justice
No. A contractor who tenders a performance so deficient that it can be remedied only by completely redoing the work has not substantially performed their contractual obligation. Substantial performance is not achieved when a defect is so pervasive as to frustrate the purpose of the contract. In this case, the purpose was not merely a functional roof, but a functional roof of a uniform color. For a homeowner, aesthetic value and personal taste are essential parts of the bargain, and a contractor cannot substitute their judgment of what is 'just as good.' The court weighed several factors, including the purpose to be served, the desire to be gratified, and the excuse for deviation. Because the roof's color was not uniform, looked like a 'patch job,' and could only be fixed by complete replacement, Grun Roofing did not substantially perform its duties under the contract.
Analysis:
This case highlights the importance of aesthetic considerations in the doctrine of substantial performance, particularly in contracts involving a person's home. The court rejected the idea that functional utility alone satisfies the contract's purpose if a specific, bargained-for aesthetic is a central element. This decision reinforces the principle that a defect is not minor if its correction requires the complete undoing and redoing of the work. It serves as a precedent that protects homeowners' right to receive the specific appearance and quality they contract for, not merely a functionally equivalent substitute.
Unlock the full brief for O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope