Barnes v. Wagoner, 573 S.W.3d 594

David Barnes contracted to build the Wagoners a house for $100,000 but work was incomplete/defective when he left the project.
The Wagoners hired a replacement contractor, Johnny Jagneaux, who testified the job had multiple defects (noninterlocking blocks, wrong rebar size, structure out of square by ~4", uneven basement slab, undersized window openings, poured concrete interfering with plumbing/ducts, and prematurely installed flooring that mildewed).
The Wagoners paid Barnes $60,000 before replacing him. They later paid Jagneaux $117,700 to correct defects and finish construction.
The trial court found Barnes breached the contract by failing to complete work timely and in a workmanlike manner and awarded the Wagoners $77,700 (the difference between total cost $177,700 and the original contract price $100,000).
Barnes appealed, arguing the findings were unsupported, that he had performed extra work, that no timeframe existed, and that construction standards were not established.
The appellate court reviewed the bench findings for clear error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barnes breached the contract by failing to complete work timely and workmanlike	Wagoners: Barnes failed to complete and performed defective work, requiring corrective work by successor contractor	Barnes: He completed work per manufacturer instructions, performed extra work, no timeframe existed, and some deviations were acceptable	Court: Finding of breach not clearly erroneous; credibility and disputed facts are for the fact-finder
Damages — whether Wagoners proved resulting damages and amount awarded	Wagoners: Paid $60,000 to Barnes and $117,700 to replace/fix work; damages equal the excess paid over contract price ($77,700)	Barnes: Implicit challenge that amounts or scope of corrective work exceeded contractual scope or were unsupported	Court: Accepted evidence of payments and awarded $77,700 (difference between actual cost and contract price)
Preservation — whether Barnes may argue lack of established construction standards on appeal	Wagoners: N/A (issue was not contested at trial)	Barnes: Trial record insufficient to show required construction standards and breaches	Court: Barnes failed to raise that argument below; appellate court will not consider new arguments raised first on appeal

Keith Capps Landscaping & Excavation, Inc. v. Van Horn Constr., Inc., 448 S.W.3d 207 (Ark. App. 2014) (elements of breach-of-contract claim and standard of review for bench trials)