Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit • 1979

Flower City Painting Contractors, Inc. v. Gumina Construction Company

591 F.2d 162 | 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 17742

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 shows that an objectively ambiguous agreement fails for lack of mutual assent when each party reasonably understands a material term differently and neither has reason to know of the other’s meaning.

Background

Gumina, the general contractor for a federally funded housing project in Rochester, hired Flower City, a newly formed minority-owned painting contractor, as part of its affirmative-action obligations under HUD requirements. The subcontract price was $98,499.84. Schedule A listed prices for one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartment “units,” while also referring generally to painting the project in accordance with its plans and specifications. The subcontract incorporated the project specifications, which described additional painting work, including exterior and common-area work.

Nearly a year later, Flower asserted that its subcontract covered only the interiors of the apartment units, not exterior surfaces, common hallways, laundry rooms, storage areas, or community buildings. Gumina insisted that this additional work was included, cancelled the subcontract before work began, and treated Flower’s demand for extra compensation as a refusal to perform. Flower sued for breach of contract.

The district court adopted Gumina’s interpretation. It held that the incorporated specifications required Flower to paint all surfaces not specifically excluded, concluded that Flower had repudiated the subcontract by demanding additional payment for included work, and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on the different ground that no enforceable contract had been formed because the parties never shared the same understanding of the scope of work.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether trade usage that painting subcontracts ordinarily cover an entire construction project could resolve the ambiguity and bind Flower to Gumina’s interpretation.

Holding

No. A party is not bound by a trade usage unless it knew or had reason to know of that usage, and Flower had neither.

Reasoning

The written subcontract plausibly supported both sides. The unit-by-unit pricing in Schedule A suggested that Flower had agreed to paint only apartment interiors. But Schedule A’s reference to the “project,” together with the incorporation of plans and specifications describing exterior painting, supported Gumina’s view that Flower had agreed to paint the entire project.

Trade usage may be proved through parol evidence and can help supply meaning to an ambiguous agreement. But the governing limitation is that a party cannot be bound by a usage unless it actually knows, or has reason to know, of its existence and character.

Flower’s president testified that Flower did not know of the asserted Rochester custom of awarding painting subcontracts on an entire-project basis. The court also held that Flower lacked reason to know it: Flower was a new minority-owned contractor, had obtained this first substantial subcontract through an affirmative-action program, and could not realistically be treated as an experienced participant in local construction-trade practices.

Issue #2

Whether Flower and Gumina formed an enforceable subcontract despite their different understandings of the work covered.

Holding

No. The parties attached different reasonable meanings to a material term, and neither had reason to know that the other attached a different meaning; therefore, no enforceable contract came into existence.

Reasoning

The scope of the painting work was a material term, and the ambiguity was not one that could fairly be resolved against either party. Flower reasonably relied on the literal unit-based pricing and description in Schedule A. Gumina reasonably relied on the incorporated specifications, its understanding of trade practice, and the fact that Flower’s price nearly equaled the amount budgeted for all painting on the project.

Under the objective rule reflected in Raffles v. Wichelhaus and the Restatement, when a party’s manifestation is ambiguous and that party has no reason to know the other side gives it a different meaning, it creates a contract only if the other side actually gives it the same meaning. Here, the parties’ objectively reasonable but conflicting understandings meant there was no mutual assent to the subject matter of the undertaking.

Because no contract was enforceable by either side, the court did not need to decide whether Flower’s request for additional compensation amounted to anticipatory repudiation or whether any repudiation was sufficiently material to justify Gumina’s unilateral cancellation. The court affirmed the dismissal on the no-contract ground.

Dissents

Judge Oakes

Reasoning

Judge Oakes would have held that the parties formed an enforceable contract under Flower’s interpretation. In his view, the specifically itemized, unit-by-unit prices and totals in Schedule A defined the scope of work as painting the apartment units only. The general references to project plans and specifications required Flower to follow the specified methods, materials, and quality standards for that work; they did not expand the defined scope to include exteriors, community buildings, or common hallways.

Any genuine uncertainty should have been construed against Gumina, which prepared the standard-form subcontract and had asked Flower to submit its proposal in the precise form incorporated as Schedule A. The particularized unit descriptions governed the more general reference to painting the project, especially because the contract did not expressly say that Flower would perform all painting on the project.

Judge Oakes also regarded the parties’ later conduct as compelling confirmation of Flower’s reading. Gumina’s field superintendent told Flower that changes had occurred after signing and sought to add language stating that exterior work and the community building were included. That evidence showed, in the dissent’s view, that Gumina had made an initial mistake about the contract’s scope and then attempted to alter the agreement without Flower’s assent.

A unilateral mistake by the party that drafted the contract did not permit Gumina to repudiate, rescind, or modify the agreement. Judge Oakes would therefore reverse and remand for a determination of Flower’s damages.