FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM, THERE NEEDS TO BE A BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL DUTY

Posted on October 23, 2022October 23, 2022 by Edward Garber

Remember this law (and I mean: remember this law!):

“An essential element of a claim for breach of contract is the existence of a material breach of a contractual duty.” JD Development I, LLC v. ICS Contractors, LLC, 2022 WL 4587083, *3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (citation and quotation omitted).

This law is important because how can another party breach of a contract if there is no contractual duty you claim they breached? This question, and, of course, the answer, should not be overlooked from a strategic standpoint because it may dictate what claims you assert, how you assert those claims, and how you present your case from a theme and evidentiary standpoint.

JD Development provides an example of why this law is important and how this can play out.

In this case, a site contractor’s written bid formed the parties’ contract. The site contractor sued the owner for non-payment of work it performed under the bid. The owner claimed that the alleged unpaid invoices did not fall within the scope of the work in the bid; therefore, the trial court should have granted a directed verdict in favor of the owner on the contractor’s breach of contract claim. The appellate court agreed!

The site contractor’s bid was a unit cost bid made up of 8 work categories and included exclusions in a notes section that were not included in its bid price. The owner accepted the bid. The site contractor performed 3 of the 8 categories in its bid and then was terminated. The site contractor claimed it was owed in excess of $100,000. This amount represented additional work the site contractor testified it was asked to perform based on site plan revisions. “No testimony was elicited during direct examination connecting the work activities set forth in the disputed invoices to any express provision of the bid.” JD Development, supra, at *2.

The owner moved for directed verdict stating the contractor “failed to present any evidence establishing that the work activities identified in the disputed invoices correlated to any express provision of the bid.” JD Development, supra, at *3. The contractor argued that the unpaid work was contemplated by the exclusions in the bid. For this reason, the trial court denied the motion for directed verdict. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the contractor finding that the owner breached the contract.

As mentioned above, the appellate court agreed that the trial court should have granted the directed verdict. Here is why:

It is undisputed that none of the work activities set forth in the unpaid invoices fell within the scope of the three work categories of the bid actually completed by [the site contractor] prior to termination…Finally, [the site contractor’s] testimony that the activities referenced in the disputed invoices fell within the express exclusions in the “Notes” section of the bid actually supports [the owner’s] position: if the work activities referenced in the disputed invoices are of the type that was expressly excluded from the bid, then clearly the bid did not reflect an agreement as to the performance of—and payment for—those work activities. Stated differently, the bid did not require [the site contractor] to perform those work activities and in turn it did not require [the owner] to compensate [the site contractor] for performing those work activities. Whether the parties may have orally agreed to the performance of those work activities or whether a written document other than the bid reflects the parties’ agreement as to the performance of those work activities has no bearing on whether the trial court properly denied the motion for directed verdict on the breach of contract claim. [The site contractor] pleaded a claim for beach of the written bid and proceeded under that legal theory at trial. And since no reasonable view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of [the site contractor] on its breach of contract claim—even when viewing testimony and evidence in the light most favorable to [the site contractor]—we hold that the trial court erred in denying [the site contractor’s] motion for directed verdict with respect to this claim.

JD Development, supra, at *3.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

USING THE YARDSTICK TEST TO PROVE LOST PROFIT DAMAGES

Posted on May 22, 2015November 8, 2024 by Edward Garber

It’s all about proving your damages! One category of consequential damages that parties sometimes seek is lost profit damages. Lost profits, though, are one of the most difficult damages to prove. If a party is interested in pursuing lost profit damages (such as when the opposing party materially breaches their contract) it is important to understand the burden and expert testimony needed to support these damages with a reasonable degree of certainty.

In a prior article, I discussed a tenant supporting a lost profit claim against its landlord due to the landlord’s breach of the lease. Recently, in Victoriana Buildings, LLC v. Ft. Lauderdale Surgical Center, LLC, 40 Fla.L.Weekly D1169b (Fla. 4^th DCA 2015), the Fourth District found that a tenant did not properly support its lost profit damages even though the landlord breached the lease. The Court affirmed that the tenant’s lost profits claim was speculative and, therefore, not recoverable. In reaching this determination, the Court explained:

Lost profits are typically proven by one of two methods: (1) the before and after theory; or (2) the yardstick test. The yardstick test is generally used when a business has not been established long enough to compile an earnings record that would sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and compares the profits of businesses that are closely comparable to the plaintiff’s. Here, the tenant’s expert consultant, in analyzing the viability of the tenant’s proposed facility, did not evaluate any comparable facility’s profitability as a “yardstick,” and the tenant’s expert CPA acknowledged that his report, which was based on the consultant’s report and forecast, was only as good or as bad as [the consultant’s] forecast. Thus, the tenant’s proof was insufficient.

Victoriana Buildings, supra (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Without a true proven history of profitability, the tenant should have used the yardstick test supported by sufficient expert testimony. Under this yardstick test, the expert would analyze closely comparable businesses to render an opinion as to the lost profits caused by the defendant’s breach. Because the tenant’s expert failed to properly perform this yardstick analysis, the tenant was denied lost profit damages since these damages became purely conjectural.

If you have incurred damages, it is important to consult with counsel to ensure the damages you have incurred can be sufficiently proven. Whether those damages are lost profit damages or another category of damages, it is crucial to sufficiently prove these damages in accordance with applicable law. Otherwise, you can wind up in the position of not properly presenting your damages at trial. In the case of a business that does not have a sufficient track record to prove lost profitability, a yardstick needs to be established to prove lost profits with a reasonable degree of certainty.

A LETTER OF INTENT CAN FORM THE BASIS OF AN ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT

Posted on December 2, 2014November 8, 2024 by Edward Garber

Just because there is not an executed subcontract, does not mean there is not an enforceable written contract between a contractor and subcontractor. While it is good practice for there to be an executed contract in place, this does not always occur. But, this lack of occurrence does not necessarily mean a performing subcontractor can escape contractual obligations merely because it never signed the subcontract. Indeed, many times a subcontractor starts performing based on a letter of intent that it received from the contractor. The letter of intent may indicate that a formal subcontract will be furnished to the subcontractor such as when the contractor is awarded the project or after the subcontractor starts performing under the letter of intent. If the subcontractor starts performing based on the letter of intent that it received, this letter of intent can certainly form the basis of an enforceable contract!

The decision in Sealevel Construction, Inc. v. Westcoast Corp., 2014 WL 3587264 (E.D.La. 2014) exemplifies how a letter of intent can form the basis of a written contract. Here, a subcontractor on a federal project solicited bids from sub-subcontractors to perform aspects of its work based on the plans and specifications for the project. The specifications, among other things, contained a liquidated damages section. A sub-subcontractor submitted a bid to install concrete piles. The subcontractor accepted the bid and issued the sub-subcontractor a letter of intent. The letter of intent was signed by both the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor and referenced the specifications. The letter of intent further stated that a formal subcontract would be entered between the parties; however, a subcontract was never executed.

The sub-subcontractor started to perform its scope of piling work based on the letter of intent. Thereafter, the subcontractor notified the sub-subcontractor of delays with the sub-subcontractor’s scope of work. The sub-subcontractor was unable to cure the delays and the subcontractor hired another entity to supplement its sub-subcontractor’s work. Nevertheless, as a result of delays to the sub-subcontractor’s scope of work, the government assessed liquidated damages against the prime contractor. The prime contractor, in turn, withheld the amount of the liquidated damages from the subcontractor in addition to the prime contractor’s own extended general conditions. The subcontractor then withheld this money from its sub-subcontractor in addition to its own extended general conditions.

The Eastern District of Louisiana found that the letter of intent served as an enforceable contract between the subcontractor and sub-subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor breached the letter of intent through its delayed performance. As a result, the subcontractor was entitled to withhold / back-charge the sub-subcontractor for (i) the costs spent on the supplemental entity to mitigate the sub-subcontractor’s delay and (ii) the portion of liquidated damages attributable to the sub-subcontractor’s delay. The court did not, however, allow the subcontractor to back-charge the sub-subcontractor for other delay-related costs (such as the prime contractor’s and the subcontractor’s extended general conditions) since the sub-subcontractor never contractually agreed to these types of damages unlike the liquidated damages section that was included in the specifications referenced in the letter of intent.

Take-aways:

If a letter of intent is issued, the letter of intent should identify the subcontract amount, the applicable scope of work, and reference the plans and specifications. The more detail in the letter of intent the better so that if the subcontractor starts performing based on the letter of intent there is a strong argument that the detailed letter of intent served as the contract between the parties (such as if the subcontractor refuses to sign the subcontract, the parties are unable to agree on the formal written subcontract, or if the subcontract is never issued).

It is good practice to have both the contractor and subcontractor sign the letter of intent.

An unexecuted contract does not mean there is not a written contract between the parties. Parties need to consider this before taking an extreme position that a contract does not exist or that they are not bound by certain requirements.

It is good practice for a party subcontracting work to be able to flow-down damages such as liquidated damages and their own extended general conditions. In this case, the subcontractor would have been able to flow-down the prime contractor’s and its extended general conditions attributable to the sub-subcontractor’s delay had this been identified in the letter of intent or clarified by an executed written subcontract.

HAS A MATERIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT OCCURRED? CONSULT COUNSEL TO BEST DETERMINE RIGHTS!

Posted on May 17, 2014November 8, 2024 by Edward Garber

When a dispute arises, whether it is a payment dispute or otherwise, parties sometimes point the finger to the other party to argue that the other party breached the contract. What exactly does this mean? For a breach of contract to occur, the breach (or nonperformance) must be a MATERIAL BREACH. See Abbot Labs, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Capital, 765 So.2d 737, 740 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2000). A material breach is one that goes to the essence of the contract versus a minor aspect of the contract. See Covelli Family, L.P. v. ABG5, L.L.C., 977 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2008). The Covelli Family Court explained:

“To constitute a vital or material breach, a party’s nonperformance must go to the essence of the contract. A party’s failure to perform some minor part of his contractual duty cannot be classified as a material or vital breach.”

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Stated similarly:

“To constitute a vital or material breach a defendant’s nonperformance must be such as to go to the essence of the contract; it must be the type of breach that would discharge the injured party from further contractual duty on his part. Corbin, supra, s 1104. A defendant’s failure to perform some minor part of his contractual duty cannot be classified as a material or vital breach. Corbin states, at s 1104, pp. 562-565:

‘. . . The injured party, however, can not maintain an action for restitution of what he has given the defendant unless the defendant’s non-performance is so material that it is held to go the ‘essence’; it must be such a breach as would discharge the injured party from any further contractual duty on his own part. Such a vital breach by the defendant operates, with respect to the right of restitution, in the same way that a repudiation of the contractual obligation would operate. A minor breach by one party does not discharge the contractual duty of the other party; and the latter being still bound to perform as agreed can not be entitled to the restitution of payments already made by him or to the value of other part performances rendered.‘”

Beefy Trail, Inc. v. Beefy King Intern, Inc., 267 So.2d 853, 857 (Fla. 1972) citing and quoting Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 5.

In numerous circumstances, nonpayment can constitute a material breach. See Scott v. Rolling Hills Place Inc., 688 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5^th DCA 1996) (finding that developer first breached contract by not paying engineer that discharged engineer of performance obligations). However, it is important for parties to consider that nonpayment does not automatically in of itself constitute a material breach. For instance, did the contract have a pay-if-paid clause? Did the party claiming nonpayment satisfy contractual conditions precedent to payment? Was the nonpaying party withholding money due to a performance issue such as defective or incomplete work? Was the payment late by a few days or was it never paid? Is the payment amount a relatively insignificant amount? Does the payment amount concern disputed amounts such as change orders or disputed defective or incomplete work? These are all questions that need to be a considered before a party takes an extreme position that it will no longer perform under the contract due to the nonpayment. A party should consult their written contract and counsel before taking any extreme position that the other party materially breached the contract to best determine the strategy and lay the foundation for the position.

The case of Marshall Const., Ltd. v. Coastal Sheet Metal & Roofing, Inc., 569 So.2d 845 (Fla. 1^st DCA 1990), illustrates the ramifications of a party without a written contract taking an extreme position due to nonpayment. In this case, a general contractor entered into a contract to repair and replace roofs on three buildings at a Florida State Hospital. The general contractor then entered into an oral contract with a roofing subcontractor. During construction, a water leak arose with the new roof installed on one of the buildings. Both the general contractor and subcontractor appeared to agree that the new roof was defective and needed to be replaced. However, the subcontractor could not finance the repair / replacement work without getting paid for the work it had performed. The subcontractor was not paid for the work performed and determined that it would not perform any more work until it was paid. As a result, the general contractor terminated the subcontractor and hired a new roofing subcontractor to finish the balance of the roofing work and replace the defective roof. The subcontractor then sued the contractor for breaching their oral contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the subcontractor; the First District Court of Appeal reversed maintaining that the subcontractor actually committed the material breach:

“It is undisputed that Coastal [roofer] failed to install the roofing system on the east wing as required under the contract. When Coastal refused to repair the roof without further payment, it committed a material breach. Marshall [general contractor] was entitled to treat the breach as a discharge of its duty to pay Coastal until such time as Coastal repaired the defective roof and fulfilled its contractual duties. In light of the fact that the terms of the [general contractor’s] contract [with the owner] required substantial completion by July 25, 1988, and that Coastal refused to return to work until it was paid, Marshall was completely justified in determining that a material breach had occurred and ordering Coastal off the job.

We find no substantial, competent evidence to support a finding that Marshall [general contractor] breached the contract. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Coastal [roofer] committed a material breach of the contract. This breach excused Marshall’s obligation to pay Coastal until the roof was repaired. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial on damages and liability.”

Marshall Const., 569 So.2d at 848 (internal citations omitted).

Now, this case demonstrates why oral contracts are disfavored because rights and obligations are amorphous. Nothing is clearly defined and there is no written agreement to consult. If there was a written contract, most likely there would be a pay-if-paid provision in which the general contractor’s payment to the subcontractor was conditioned on its receipt of payment from the owner. It is uncertain whether the owner paid the general contractor for the defective work; if the owner did not, then the general contractor’s payment obligation would not have been triggered. But, let’s assume the owner did pay the general contractor. Well, the subcontract most likely contained a clause pertaining to defective work that would authorize the subcontractor to fix the work at its own costs and also entitle the general contractor to withhold sums as the result of incomplete or defective work. For instance, the standard form agreement between a contractor and subcontractor published by the ConsensusDocs (Document 750) contains the following provisions:

3.22.2.1 If the Architect/Engineer or Contractor rejects the Subcontract Work or the Subcontract Work is not in conformance with the Subcontract Documents, the Subcontractor shall promptly correct the Subcontract Work whether it had been fabricated, installed or completed. The Subcontractor shall be responsible for the costs of correcting such Subcontract Work, any additional testing, inspections, and compensation for services and expenses of the Architect/Engineer and Contractor made necessary by the defective Subcontract Work.

10.1.1 NOTICE TO CURE If the Subcontractor refuses or fails to supply enough properly qualified workers, proper materials, or maintain the Progress Schedule, or fails to make prompt payment to its workers, subcontractors or suppliers, or disregards laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction, or otherwise is guilty of a material breach of a provision of this Agreement, the Subcontractor shall be deemed in default of this Agreement. If the Subcontractor fails within three (3) business Days after written notification to commence and continue satisfactory correction of the default with diligence and promptness, then the Contractor without prejudice to any other rights or remedies, shall have the right to any or all of the following remedies:

10.1.1.1 supply workers, materials, equipment and facilities as the Contractor deems necessary for the completion of the Subcontract Work or any part which the Subcontractor has failed to complete or perform after written notification, and charge the cost, including reasonable overhead, profit, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to the Subcontractor;

10.1.1.2 contract with one or more additional contractors to perform such part of the Subcontract Work as the Contractor determines will provide the most expeditious completion of the Work, and charge the cost to the Subcontractor as provided under Clause 10.1.1.1; or

10.1.1.3 withhold any payments due or to become due the Subcontractor pending corrective action in amounts sufficient to cover losses and compel performance to the extent required by and to the satisfaction of the Contractor.

These provisions would hurt a subcontractor’s argument that it should get paid for work performed, including defective work performed, so that it could finance the repairs.

Again, before extreme positions are taken, a party should absolutely consult their written contract to determine rights, obligations, and risks they agreed to. Having a lawyer involved on the front end during the contract negotiation can help a party negotiate and/or appreciate the risks they are agreeing to. Even if a lawyer was not involved on the front end, having the lawyer involved when difficult issues arise during the course of construction will allow a party to preserve rights / arguments and take positions or avoid positions based on a determined strategy. As the expression goes, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!”