K & G Const. Co. v. Harris, 4
Decision Date | 24 October 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 4,4 |
Citation | 164 A.2d 451,223 Md. 305 |
Parties | K & G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Glendal W. HARRIS and Arthur E. Brooks. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Frank P. Flury, Riverdale, for appellant.
Leonard S. Blondes, Silver Spring, for appellees.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Feeling aggrieved by the action of the trial judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, sitting without a jury, in finding a judgment against it in favor of a subcontractor, 1 the appellant, the general contractor on a construction project, appealed.
The principal question presented is: Does a contractor, damaged by a subcontractor's failure to perform a portion of his work in a workmanlike manner, have a right, under the circumstances of this case, to withhold, in partial satisfaction of said damages, an installment payment, which, under the terms of the contract, was due the subcontractor, unless the negligent performance of his work excused its payment?
The appeal is presented on a case stated in accordance with Maryland Rule 826 g.
The statement, in relevant part, is as follows:
'* * * K & G Construction Company, Inc. (hereinafter called Contractor), plaintiff and counter-defendant in the Circuit Court and appellant herein, was owner and general contractor of a housing subdivision project being constructed (herein called Project). Harris and Brooks (hereinafter called Subcontractor), defendants and counter-plaintiffs in the Circuit Court and appellees herein, entered into a contract with Contractor to do excavating and earth-moving work on the Project. Pertinent parts of the contract are set forth below:
'Section 3. The Subcontractor agrees to complete the several portions and the whole of the work herein sublet by the time or times following:
'While in the course of his employment by the Subcontractor on the Project, a bulldozer operator drove his machine too close to Contractor's house while grading the yard, causing the immediate collapse of a wall and other damage to the house. The resulting damage to contractor's house was $3,400.00. Subcontractor had complied with the insurance provision (Sec. 9) of the aforesaid contract. Subcontractor reported said damages to their liability insurance carrier. The Subcontractor and its insurance carrier refused to repair damage or compensate Contractor for damage to the house, claiming that there was no liability on the part of the Subcontractor.
'Contractor gave no written notice to Subcontractor for any services rendered or materials furnished by the Contractor to the Subcontractor.
* * *
* * *
'Contractor was generally satisfied with Subcontractor's work and progress as required under Sections 3 and 8 of the contract until September 12, 1958, with the exception of the bulldozer accident of August 9, 1958.
'Subcontractor performed work under the contract during July, 1958, for which it submitted a requisition by the 25th of July, as required by the contract, for work done prior to the 25th of July, payable under the terms of the contract by Contractor on or before August 10, 1958. Contractor was current as to payments due under all preceding monthly requisitions from Subcontractor. The aforesaid bulldozer accident damaging Contractor's house occurred on August 9, 1958. Contractor refused to pay Subcontractor's requisition due on August 10 1958, because the bulldozer damage to Contractor's house had not been repaired or paid for. Subcontractor continued to work on the project until the 12th of September, 1958, at which time they discontinued working on the project because of Contractor's refusal to pay the said work requisition and notified Contractor by registered letters of their position and willingness to return to the job, but only upon payment. At that time, September 12, 1958, the value of the work completed by Subcontractor on the project for which they had not been paid was $1,484.50.
'Contractor later requested Subcontractor to return and complete work on the Project which Subcontractor refused to do because of nonpayment of work requisitions of July 25 and thereafter. Contractor's house was not repaired by Subcontractor nor compensation paid for the damage.
'It was stipulated that Subcontractor had completed work on the Project under the contract for which they had not been paid in the amount of $1,484.50 and that if they had completed the remaining work to be done under the contract, they would have made a profit of $1,340.00 on the remaining uncompleted portion of the contract. It was further stipulated that it cost the Contractor $450.00 above the contract price to have another excavating contractor complete the remaining work required under the contract. It was the opinion of the Court that if judgment were in favor of the Subcontractor, it should be for the total amount of $2,824.50.
The $3.400 judgment has been paid.
It is immediately apparent that our decision turns upon the respective rights and liabilities of the parties under that portion of their contract whereby the subcontractor agreed to do the excavating and earth-moving work in 'a workmanlike manner, and in accordance with the best practices,' with time being of the essence of the contract, and the contractor agreed to make progress payments therefor on the 10th day of the months following the performance of the work by the subcontractor. 3 The subcontractor contends, of course, that when the contractor failed to make the payment due on August 10, 1958, he breached his contract and thereby released him (the subcontractor) from any further obligation to perform. The contractor, on the other hand, argues that the failure of the subcontractor to perform his work in a workmanlike manner constituted a material breach of the contract, which justified his refusal to make the August 10 payment; and, as there was no breach on his part, the subcontractor had no right to cease performance on September 12, and his refusal to continue work on the project constituted another breach, which rendered him liable to the contractor for damages. The vital question, more tersely stated, remains: Did the contractor have a right, under the circumstances, to refuse to make the progress payment due on August 10, 1958?
The answer involves interesting and important principles of contract law. Promises and counter-promises made by the respective parties to a contract have certain relations to one another, which determine many of the rights and liabilities of the parties. Broadly speaking, they are (1) independent of each other, or (2) mutually dependent, one upon the other. They are independent of each other if the parties intend that performance by each of them is in no way conditioned upon performance by the other. 5 Page, The Law of Contracts, p 2971. In other words, the parties exchange promises for promises, not the performance of promises for the performance of promises. 3 Williston,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kimm v. Andrews
...No. 5 provides 'Settlement shall take place not later than March 31, 1971.' (Emphasis supplied.) In K & G Construction Co. v. Harris, 223 Md. 305, 312, 164 A.2d 451, 454-455 (1960) Judge Prescott, for the Court, in discussing the law in regard to promises and counter-promises, 'Promises and......
-
BarGale Industries, Inc. v. Robert Realty Co., Inc.
...v. Randolph Hills, supra, at 276, 235 A.2d at 740 (1967); Barnes v. Euster, 240 Md. 603, 214 A.2d 807 (1965); K & G Construction Co. v. Harris, 223 Md. 305, 164 A.2d 451 (1960); Griffith v. Scheungrab, Separate and aside from the issue of waiver of one of the conditions precedent-there was ......
-
Wheeler v. Wheeler
...or to receive performance. See, e. g., Brunswick Corporation v. Vineberg, 370 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1967); K. & G. Construction Company v. Harris, 223 Md. 305, 164 A.2d 451 (1960); J. Calamari & J. Perillo, supra at § 11-37; Simpson, supra at § 171; 3a Corbin, supra at § 755; 5 Williston, Cont......
-
Shoreham Developers, Inc. v. Randolph Hills, Inc.
...the conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. Barnes v. Euster, 240 Md. 603, 214 A.2d 807 (1965); K & G Construction Co. v. Harris, 223 Md. 305, 164 A.2d 451 (1960); Griffith v. Scheungrab, 219 Md. 27, 146 A.2d 864 (1958); Royal McBee Corporation v. Bryant, 217 A.2d 603 (D.C.App......
-
GERHART AND PRIVATE LAW'S MELODY OF REASONABLENESS.
...A Theory of Self-Help Remedies in Contract, 89 B.U. L. Rev. 1397, 1411 (2009). (87.) K & G Construction Co. v. Harris illustrates. 164 A.2d 451, 456 (Md. 1960). There was a dispute over whether a subcontractor was responsible for damage caused by its bulldozer, which turned on whether t......