Caseflicks

Court of Appeals of Maryland • 1960

K & G CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Harris

164 A.2d 451 | 223 Md. 305 | 1960 Md. LEXIS 495

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a material failure of workmanlike performance can justify withholding a progress payment, and a subcontractor that then abandons the job does so at its own risk.

Background

K & G Construction Company, the owner and general contractor for a housing project, hired Harris and Brooks to perform excavation and earth-moving work. The subcontract required work to be performed in a workmanlike manner and according to best practices. It also required K & G to make monthly progress payments, less a ten-percent retainage, by the tenth day of the month in which the subcontractor submitted its requisition.

On August 9, 1958, a subcontractor employee operating a bulldozer graded too close to K & G's house, causing a wall to collapse and inflicting $3,400 in damage. The subcontractor had otherwise performed satisfactorily. A progress payment for work completed before July 25 was due the next day, August 10, but K & G withheld it because the house damage had not been repaired or paid. The subcontractor continued working until September 12, then stopped work and said it would return only after being paid.

K & G later hired another excavator to finish the work at an additional cost of $450. The parties stipulated that the subcontractor was owed $1,484.50 for completed but unpaid work and would have earned $1,340 in profit on the uncompleted work. A jury separately awarded K & G $3,400 for the bulldozer damage, and that judgment was paid. In the remaining bench trial, the circuit court awarded the subcontractor $2,824.50 on its counterclaim. K & G appealed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the subcontractor's negligent damage to K & G's house was a material breach that entitled K & G to withhold the progress payment due under the subcontract.

Holding

Yes. The promises of workmanlike performance and progress payment were mutually dependent, and the subcontractor's negligent, materially defective performance justified K & G's refusal to make the August 10 payment.

Reasoning

The Court began with the distinction between independent and dependent contractual promises. Although parties may make promises enforceable without regard to the other side's performance, modern contract law generally presumes that reciprocal promises are dependent when that construction fits the parties' intent. That intent is determined from the entire agreement, the nature of the transaction, and the circumstances surrounding it.

Here, the subcontract expressly made the subcontractor's workmanlike performance a condition that preceded K & G's monthly payment obligation. Progress payments did not transform the construction agreement into a series of wholly independent contracts. Treating payment as due regardless of the quality of the work would force a general contractor to continue financing defective performance and leave it only to later litigation for relief.

The bulldozer operator's negligent destruction of part of K & G's house breached the subcontractor's express promise to perform in a workmanlike manner and according to best practices. The breach was material because the $3,400 loss was more than twice the amount of the progress payment that became due on August 10. K & G therefore could withhold that payment while treating the subcontractor's breach as partial rather than immediately ending the contract.

Issue #2

Whether the subcontractor was justified in stopping work after K & G withheld the August 10 progress payment, and whether it owed K & G the increased completion cost.

Holding

No. Because K & G's nonpayment was justified, the subcontractor's abandonment was an unjustified breach, making it liable for K & G's stipulated $450 additional cost of completion.

Reasoning

A contractor may not abandon a project merely because an owner or general contractor refuses an installment payment when that refusal is justified by the contractor's own material defective performance. Since K & G was not in default when it withheld payment, the subcontractor had no contractual right to cease performance on September 12.

The subcontractor's subsequent refusal to return and complete the excavation was therefore a breach of the agreement. Under the contract's express provision allowing K & G to obtain substitute performance after the subcontractor's default, K & G could recover the extra amount it had to pay another excavator. The parties stipulated that amount was $450, so the Court reversed the subcontractor's $2,824.50 judgment and entered judgment for K & G in that amount.