Suing Home Repair Contractors in Delaware
We read about this in the newspapers all the time. A homeowner hires a contractor to install a deck, build an addition, remodel the home, etc. The contractor doesn't finish the job, or if he does, the homeowner is horribly disappointed in the quality of the work. The homeowner refuses to pay the balance that was due upon completion, and the contractor threatens to file a lawsuit to collect the rest of his money.
Here's what happened in a recent lawsuit. A landscaping company and a homeowner entered into a contract to have a brick patio installed. The contract unfortunately was very vague in that it didn't have a completion date, and said little or nothing about dimensions or the materials to be used. Before the work was started, the homeowner paid a deposit to the contractor. When the patio was completed, the contractor charged the remaining balance to the homeowner's credit card. However, the owner was worried that there wasn't enough sand under the patio, and so she asked the contractor to come out and inspect. Although he agreed to meet at the house, he failed to show up, and the owner placed a stop payment order on the final payment.
The contractor sued the homeowner, and the case went to trial. The contractor claimed that his work was satisfactory. According to the Court, even if a contact doe not contain any warranties, under Delaware law there is an implied builder's waranty of good quality and workmanship. Because this contractor held himself out as a competent contractor, there is a presumption under the law that he possesses the skill needed to perform the work, and imposes a requirement that the work be done in a skillful and workmanlike manner.
In deciding whether the contractor's work was performed in a workmanlike manner, the Court applies the following test: Did the contractor display the degree of skill or knowledge usually possessed by others in his profession.
The fact that the contract was vague came back to haunt this contractor because under Delaware law, every building contract is conditioned on the requirement that all laws and regulations are complied with. The only exception is where the contract specificaly contains language establishing a different measure of performance. The Court found that the patio did not comply with the building code, and hence the contractor was found to have breached the contract.
