No, the homeowner gets a discount for the unfinished work. A contractor who is unfairly stopped from finishing a job should be paid to put them in the same financial spot they would have been in if they had completed it—not a better one. The court agreed that the homeowner, Sullivan, was wrong to kick the contractor, Bullock, off the property. But, the jury made a mistake by awarding Bullock the full amount of money left on the contract. Since Bullock didn't have to buy the rest of the materials or pay his workers to finish the job, he saved money. That saved money must be subtracted from the final payment to make it fair. Paying him the full price would be like giving him a bonus for work he never did.

Yes, it was Mrs. Sullivan's fault. The jury said that Mr. Bullock didn't finish the job, but it wasn't his fault because Mrs. Sullivan wouldn't let him back into her house to work, which was not fair or legal. The court agreed with the jury that Mrs. Sullivan was the reason the job wasn't finished and that Mr. Bullock should get paid for what he would have earned. But the court also said that Mr. Bullock shouldn't get all the money he asked for because he saved some money by not finishing the work. The court subtracted $2,677.40 from the $2,956.40 the jury awarded, so Mr. Bullock only gets $279. The court explained that when someone breaks a contract, the other person should be made whole, but not get more than they would have if the contract was completed. The court also said they need to think again about whether Mr. Bullock should get extra money for his legal costs.

I agree with the decision because Mrs. Sullivan stopped Mr. Bullock from doing his work by not letting him in, which isn’t fair. But I add that the way the extra money was calculated—especially for the electrical work—needs a closer look because the numbers don’t add up clearly. My view is like the majority’s, with a little extra push to get the cost details right.

I agree with the decision because Mrs. Sullivan kept Mr. Bullock from working by not letting him in, so his award should be lowered. But I also think we need to take another look at the legal fees, because even if the work wasn’t finished, some of his expenses might still count. My view matches the main result while suggesting a closer check on the extra costs.

"To excuse a party's nonperformance, however, the conduct of the party preventing performance must be `wrongful'and `in excess of their legal rights.'"

Since it is not clear that rejection of filters during the testing period was "outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties when the contract was executed,"

The compensatory damages are measured by the amount that would be necessary to put the plaintiff in as good a position as would full performance of the contract.

Under Idaho law, "a party who is prevented from performing by the party for whom the work is to be done may treat the contract as breached and may recover damages sustained."

The party whose performance has been prevented may be entitled to damages for the benefit of the bargain that would have been earned through performance.

This restriction is known as the prevention doctrine, under which a party has a duty to not wrongfully prevent the occurrence of the condition

If Paragraphs 2. b (iv)-(v) of the Agreement were not dispositive, there would then be a genuine issue as to a material fact.

The issue of prevention was described in instruction twenty-two, which follows the theory stated in Molyneux that the act of prevention must have been unreasonable, in other words, outside the contemplation of the parties as expressed in the contract.

No. The contractor's damages are not the full remaining contract price. When a contractor is prevented from completing a contract, the proper measure of damages is the contract price less any costs the contractor avoided by not having to perform. The fundamental purpose of contract damages is to place the non-breaching party in as good a position as full performance would have, not a better one. Awarding the full contract price without deducting the saved costs of completion would result in a windfall for the contractor, putting him in a better position than if the contract had been fully performed. The court affirmed the jury's finding that Sullivan wrongfully prevented Bullock from completing the work by denying him access to the property, which excused his non-performance. However, the jury erred in its damage calculation by awarding Bullock the full remaining contract balance. The award failed to subtract the costs Bullock saved by not having to finish the cabinetry and flooring, and it improperly included a charge for unapproved electrical work. Therefore, the damage award must be recalculated to reflect these deductions.

Yes. The jury found that Mr. Bullock had not substantially performed under the contract, but that he had been prevented from doing so by Mrs. Sullivan's actions, which were wrongful and in excess of her legal rights. Because Mrs. Sullivan barred Mr. Bullock from her home, she unreasonably prevented him from completing the contract. The court affirmed the jury's finding on this issue and recognized Mr. Bullock's entitlement to damages for the benefit of the bargain. However, the court reversed the decision regarding the measure of damages awarded to Mr. Bullock, as it failed to account for the savings he gained from not completing the project. The court deducted $2,677.40 from the jury award of $2,956.40, leaving a reduced judgment of $279 for Mr. Bullock. The court reasoned that to fully compensate the nonbreaching party, the damages must account for any savings obtained by being relieved of the duty to perform. Mr. Bullock is entitled to be put in as good a position as full performance would have done, but no better. The court also vacated the award of attorney fees and remanded for further consideration of whether Mr. Bullock remains the prevailing party entitled to fees.

I concur with the majority that Mrs. Sullivan’s denial of access to the premises prevented Mr. Bullock from fulfilling his contractual obligations because her actions directly impaired his ability to complete the remodeling work. However, I diverge from the majority in my analysis of the damages calculation, particularly regarding the extra electrical work charges, because the record exhibits ambiguity that could lead to an overcompensation if not carefully re-examined. My concurrence emphasizes that while the principal finding of prevention is correct, a more precise allocation of costs is necessary to ensure that only bona fide losses are compensated.

I concur with the majority in finding that Mrs. Sullivan’s actions prevented Mr. Bullock from properly performing the contract because her refusal to allow access significantly hindered his work. However, I differ from the majority in my treatment of the attorney fees, because I believe that even though the overall award should reflect the savings from non-performance, the fees should be re-evaluated to ensure they accurately mirror the reasonable expenses incurred. My concurrence supports the main findings while urging a more nuanced review of the cost allocations.

Sullivan v. Bullock

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot