State v. Jackowski
915 A.2d 767 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's contractual obligations are not discharged by the defenses of implied waiver, absent detrimental reliance by the opposing party, or impracticability, unless performance becomes permanently and unreasonably difficult. Furthermore, a party proving a breach is entitled to damages even if the amount cannot be calculated with precision, so long as there is credible evidence to support an approximation.
Facts:
- In October 1998, Waterbury Feed Company, LLC (tenant) leased a portion of an old grist mill from Carol O'Neil (landlord) to operate a restaurant.
- The lease stipulated that Waterbury Feed was responsible for 44.3% of heating fuel costs and gave it the right to use a stream-side patio area that O'Neil was obligated to construct.
- Instead of following the lease's cost-sharing provision for heat, Waterbury Feed contracted directly with a propane supplier and, for most of the tenancy, paid the entire bill.
- In April 2000, the parties signed an addendum requiring O'Neil to construct the patio by May 31, 2000.
- Shortly before the patio construction deadline, a flood occurred, requiring a state stream-alteration permit and blasting work, which was not completed until November 2002.
- After the blasting was completed, O'Neil still refused to build the patio, believing Waterbury Feed was in violation of the lease.
- The lease also required O'Neil to maintain the roof in good condition, but the roof developed gaps that made the sky visible from the interior.
- In November 2004, Waterbury Feed sent O'Neil a letter stating its intention to assign the lease but did not include the terms and conditions of the proposed assignment as required by the lease.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 17, 2003, Waterbury Feed Company, LLC (tenant) filed a complaint seeking damages against Carol O'Neil (landlord) in the Washington Superior Court, a state trial court.
- O'Neil filed a counterclaim seeking eviction and payment of unpaid and underpaid rent.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of O'Neil on all claims, granted her possession of the property, and awarded her $22,283.43 in damages.
- Waterbury Feed Company, LLC, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under a commercial lease agreement, can a landlord successfully defend against breach of contract claims by asserting implied waiver, impracticability, or the tenant's failure to prove damages with mathematical certainty?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a landlord cannot successfully defend against breach of contract claims by asserting implied waiver, impracticability, or the tenant's failure to prove damages with certainty under these circumstances. For the defense of implied waiver to succeed, the party asserting it must demonstrate detrimental reliance on the other party's conduct; here, O'Neil presented no evidence that she detrimentally relied on Waterbury Feed's practice of paying the entire heating bill. The defense of impracticability fails because the flood and permitting process only caused a temporary delay in constructing the patio; it did not render performance permanently or unreasonably difficult, and O'Neil's subsequent refusal to build was a breach. Finally, a failure to prove damages with mathematical precision is not a bar to recovery; Waterbury Feed provided testimony about its lost business, which was sufficient evidence for the trial court to weigh and form a basis for a reasonable damage award. While O'Neil also breached her duty to maintain the roof, Waterbury Feed failed to prove actual damages, so only nominal damages are appropriate for that breach.
Analysis:
This case reinforces several fundamental contract law principles within the context of commercial leases, clarifying the high threshold for common defenses. The court's ruling on implied waiver emphasizes that a mere deviation from a contract's terms by one party does not excuse the other party's performance without a showing of detrimental reliance. Similarly, the decision strictly construes the impracticability defense, distinguishing temporary hindrances from permanent impossibility. This decision also protects plaintiffs by affirming that difficulty in calculating damages does not defeat a valid claim, ensuring that a party who suffers a clear breach can obtain a remedy even if the loss cannot be quantified with exactitude.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Jackowski