Pisani Construction, Inc. v. Krueger
68 Conn. App. 361, 791 A.2d 634, 2002 Conn. App. LEXIS 109 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A builder who commits an unexcused failure to render substantial performance on a construction contract cannot maintain an action on the contract to recover the unpaid balance. The determination of substantial performance depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the deviation from the contract deprives the owner of a reasonably expected benefit.
Facts:
- Pisani Construction, Inc. (Pisani) entered into an agreement with Adolf and Ida Krueger (Krueger) to erect a metal building as an addition to an existing structure.
- The contract specified that the frames and panel heights of the new building were required to match those of the existing structure.
- After construction, it was discovered that the roof line of the new building was approximately three inches higher than the existing structure.
- This height discrepancy resulted in the misalignment of gutters and windows between the two buildings, causing an icing problem in the winter.
- Pisani offered no resolution to the height difference, other than a field modification to the ridge caps to blend the roof lines.
- Krueger refused to make the final payment of $14,252 due under the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Pisani Construction, Inc. filed a mechanic's lien against Krueger's property and then filed a complaint in a Connecticut trial court to foreclose the lien.
- Krueger filed an answer and a two-count counterclaim for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The trial court found that Pisani had not substantially performed its contract and rendered judgment in favor of Krueger on Pisani's complaint.
- The trial court also rendered judgment in favor of Pisani on Krueger's counterclaim.
- Pisani, as appellant, appealed the judgment on its complaint to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, and Krueger is the appellee.
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 construction company's failure to match the roofline of a new building addition with an existing structure, as required by the contract, constitute a lack of substantial performance that bars it from recovering the final contract payment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mihalakos, J.
Yes. A construction company's failure to match the roofline of a new building addition with an existing structure, as required by the contract, constitutes a lack of substantial performance that bars it from recovering the final contract payment. The court held that substantial performance is a constructive condition precedent to the owner's duty to make the final payment. The determination of whether a contract has been substantially performed is a question of fact based on the totality of the circumstances. Here, the contract specifically required the new building to match the existing one, so exactitude in height was a key component, not a minor detail. The three-inch deviation was not de minimis because it deprived the owner of a reasonably expected benefit and caused tangible problems, such as misaligned gutters and an icing issue. Therefore, because the builder failed to substantially perform, it cannot maintain an action on the contract to recover the unpaid balance.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the substantial performance doctrine in construction contracts, emphasizing its fact-intensive nature. It clarifies that 'mere use' of a flawed building by the owner does not automatically prove substantial performance. The decision underscores that what might be a minor deviation in one context (a few inches in height) can be a material breach in another, especially when the contract's purpose requires precision, as in matching an existing structure. This precedent guides lower courts to look beyond the deviation's size and consider its practical consequences and the specific expectations of the parties as outlined in the contract.
