2024 Ark. App. 328
Ark. Ct. App.2024Background
- John Roberts (doing business as Roberts Roofing) and Joy Corp/Nazir Sardar entered into a contract for roofing services at the Relax Inn for $25,000, plus extra for additional work as needed.
- Sardar made $15,000 in payments; a dispute arose regarding additional roofing work Sardar claimed was included for his personal home, allegedly evidenced by a handwritten contract amendment.
- Roberts claimed Sardar altered the contract and refused to pay for extra work unless it was included for free, resulting in the removal of Roberts and his crew from the property before completion.
- Sardar claimed Roberts demanded full payment prematurely and attempted to take away previously paid-for materials, leading Sardar to call the police.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Roberts on his breach-of-contract claim and dismissed Sardar’s counterclaim with prejudice, later awarding Roberts damages and attorney fees.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals found there were genuine disputes of material fact and reversed and remanded the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | No factual disputes, entitled to judgment; Sardar breached by not paying full contract price | Factual disputes exist over scope of work and breach; work on home was included and Roberts breached by leaving | Improper; factual disputes preclude summary judgment |
| Interpretation of handwritten amendment | Not binding—no extra consideration or work details; not part of contract | Amendment valid; reflects the parties’ agreement and Roberts accepted scope | Reasonable minds could differ; not to be decided on summary judgment |
| Who breached the contract | Sardar failed to pay, causing breach | Roberts demanded payment before job completion and left site | Disputed; must be resolved at trial |
| Appropriateness of counterclaim dismissal | Counterclaim lacks merit, as Sardar was in breach | Counterclaim valid based on alternative version of events | Dismissal improper since there are disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Ivy, 2020 Ark. App. 144 (summary judgment only proper where no genuine issues of material fact)
- Gibraltar Lubricating Servs., Inc. v. Pinnacle Res., Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 156 (summary judgment improper where credibility must be weighed)
- Davis v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 2013 Ark. App. 737 (summary judgment requires evidence under oath)