Oak Ridge Construction Co. v. Tolley
1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 10488, 504 A.2d 1343, 351 Pa. Super. 32 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's statement that a specific charge is 'in dispute' and a request to resolve the matter through a contract's existing arbitration clause does not constitute a definite and unconditional repudiation of the contract. A party that ceases performance in response to such a dispute, rather than a true repudiation, commits a material breach of the contract.
Facts:
- In June 1982, the Tolleys contracted with Oak Ridge Construction Co. (Oak Ridge) for the construction of a residence.
- The contract specified that Oak Ridge would drill a 150-foot water well, with set per-foot charges for any required additional depth.
- Before drilling, Oak Ridge warned the Tolleys that the well might need to be very deep, citing other wells in the area drilled to over 750 feet.
- Oak Ridge drilled the well to a depth of 800 feet and, on August 27, 1982, sent the Tolleys an invoice for the extra 650 feet of drilling.
- On September 2, Mr. Tolley sent a letter to Oak Ridge stating the extra charges were 'in dispute or disagreement' and that all work on the water supply should cease pending resolution under the contract's arbitration clause.
- On September 7, Oak Ridge responded by declaring the Tolleys in breach for refusing to pay, giving a ten-day termination notice, and immediately stopping all construction work on the house.
- On September 10, Mr. Tolley replied to Oak Ridge's letter, stating that arbitration was 'not advised at this time.'
Procedural Posture:
- Oak Ridge Construction Co. sued the Tolleys in a state trial court for anticipatory breach of contract.
- The trial court found that the Tolleys had committed an anticipatory breach and entered a judgment awarding damages to Oak Ridge.
- The Tolleys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment 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:
Does a party to a construction contract commit an anticipatory breach by stating that charges for a specific item are 'in dispute or disagreement' and requesting resolution under the contract's arbitration clause, thereby justifying the other party's immediate cessation of all work?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, Judge
No. A party does not commit an anticipatory breach by merely disputing a charge and invoking a contract's arbitration clause. An anticipatory breach requires a definite and unconditional repudiation of the contract, which is a statement so positive that it can be reasonably interpreted to mean the party will not or cannot perform. Mr. Tolley’s letter was not an unequivocal refusal to pay or a repudiation of the entire contract; rather, it was a communication of a disagreement and an invocation of the contract's own dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, the Tolleys did not breach the contract. Consequently, Oak Ridge's unilateral decision to stop all work was not justified and constituted a material breach of the contract, discharging the Tolleys from their contractual obligations.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold required to establish an anticipatory breach, distinguishing a good-faith dispute from an outright repudiation. It serves as a caution to parties that invoking a contract's dispute resolution clause is not a breach and that prematurely declaring the other party in breach is a risky action. By ceasing performance without proper justification, a party transforms itself from a potential victim of a breach into the actual breaching party. The case reinforces that parties should exhaust contractually agreed-upon resolution mechanisms before taking drastic steps like terminating the agreement.
