Timothy W. Paul v. Stone Artisans, Ltd.
20 N.E.3d 883
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Sept. 2012 Stone Artisans sent Paul a written quote/contract for countertops and backsplashes totaling $5,499; Paul emailed “agree” the same day and paid half as a down payment.
- Stone Artisans measured, installed the work before Sept. 30, 2012; Paul and his designer expressed satisfaction on completion.
- Stone Artisans billed the remaining balance; Paul did not pay. Stone Artisans recorded a mechanic’s lien on Oct. 29, 2012 and later sued to foreclose the lien and for damages.
- Paul counterclaimed, arguing (1) no valid contract existed because essential terms (e.g., precise sink/plumbing hole measurements, backsplash height) were missing and (2) the contract violated the Home Improvement Contract Act (HICA).
- The trial court found an enforceable contract, concluded Stone Artisans substantially complied with HICA, entered an in rem judgment foreclosing the lien and awarding balance, fees, costs and interest; Paul appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Paul) | Defendant's Argument (Stone Artisans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid contract existed | Contract omitted essential terms (measurements for sink/plumbing holes; exact backsplash height), so no mutual assent | The written contract contained offer, price, scope and acceptance; missing measurement details were to be determined later and not essential | Court: Valid, enforceable contract existed — terms were sufficiently certain and Paul accepted and paid down payment |
| Whether noncompliance with HICA voids the contract | Contract failed to strictly comply with HICA (missing start/completion dates and consumer’s printed name), so contract should be void | Although the contract omitted HICA elements, HICA does not automatically void contracts; court may fashion remedies and should consider substantial compliance and equities | Court: Substantial compliance was sufficient; no consumer deception shown, enforcement furthers appropriate policy balance — contract enforced and lien foreclosed |
Key Cases Cited
- Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Mktg. Grp., Inc., 906 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009) (certainty of terms: contracts enforceable if reasonably certain; not all terms must be exact)
- Infinity Prods., Inc. v. Quandt, 810 N.E.2d 1028 (Ind. 2004) (appellate standard reviewing findings and judgment)
- Cyr v. J. Yoder, Inc., 762 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (two-tier review for findings of fact and conclusions of law)
- Hayes v. Chapman, 894 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. 2013) (statutory interpretation requires considering purpose and effects)
- Benge v. Miller, 855 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (purpose of HICA: protect consumers from industry abuses; contractors held to strict standards)
- Imperial Ins. Restoration & Remodeling, Inc. v. Costello, 965 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory violation alone does not automatically void agreement; courts must apply a balancing test to decide remedy)