450 S.W.3d 685
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Kingridge hired Washington (contractor) to install HVAC units and ductwork for $17,500 under a written contract dated October 23, 2012; contract required permits, materials, and completion by November 26, 2012, with "time is of the essence."
- Washington immediately reported he could not buy materials or the city permit; Kingridge purchased the HVAC units and paid for the permit. Washington received a $400 loan and signed a promissory note.
- Work was not completed by the contract deadline; Kingridge terminated the contract, alleging poor workmanship and noncompliance with plans and codes. Washington claimed Kingridge prevented completion and failed to pay for labor.
- Kingridge sued for breach of contract and replevin of the equipment; the trial court ordered Washington to return the HVAC units. Washington counterclaimed for unpaid labor and, later, for the full contract price.
- After a bench trial, the court awarded Kingridge $2,262 in damages for completion costs, credited Washington $1,000 for labor, resulting in a net judgment of $1,262 in Kingridge’s favor, plus $215 costs and $5,500 in attorney fees.
- Washington appealed, arguing waiver, that Kingridge was the first material breacher, and that the attorney-fee award was improper or unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kingridge waived breaches by accepting continued work after buying materials/permit | Washington: Kingridge’s purchase and acceptance constituted waiver of breaches | Kingridge: Waiver did not occur because Washington’s material breaches were continuing (poor, untimely, noncompliant work) | Court: No clear error — no waiver; factual finding affirmed |
| Whether Kingridge was the first material breacher, barring its recovery | Washington: Kingridge prevented completion and materially breached first | Kingridge: Washington’s failure to perform competent, timely, code-compliant work was the material breach | Court: No clear error — Washington materially breached; King's termination justified |
| Proper measure of damages and offsets | Washington: Entitled to full contract price or greater recovery for completed work | Kingridge: Entitled to cost to complete; offset Washington’s labor value | Court: Award of completion cost ($2,262) less $1,000 labor credit = $1,262 net affirmed |
| Whether attorney fees awarded to Kingridge were improper or unsupported | Washington: Fees were unsupported and court failed to apply Chrisco factors; if fees awarded, they should be to him | Kingridge: Prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees; trial court announced fee and judgment included $5,500 | Court: Fee issue not preserved for appeal due to failure to file required posttrial motion; court did not reach merits; fee award left intact |
Key Cases Cited
- Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co. v. Brunk, 160 Ark. 574, 255 S.W. 7 (1923) (discusses waiver and contract performance)
- Stephens v. West Pontiac-GMC, Inc., 7 Ark. App. 275, 647 S.W.2d 492 (1983) (addressing waiver and breach issues)
- Southern Pipe Coating, Inc. v. Spear & Wood Mfg. Co., 235 Ark. 1021, 363 S.W.2d 912 (1963) (cases on material breach and termination)
- Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990) (factors for evaluating reasonable attorney fees)