Kiff Contractors, Inc. v. Beeman
| Decision Date | 25 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 2618,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 10 Mich.App. 207,159 N.W.2d 144 |
| Parties | KIFF CONTRACTORS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Forrest W. BEEMAN and W. Brennan, d/b/a W. Brennan Company, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Donald G. Schiff, Schiff, Krell & Gordon, Detroit, for appellant.
Judson B. Robb, Wyandotte, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and FITZGERALD and McGREGOR, JJ.
This case comes to us on appeal from a decision of the court of common pleas of the city of Detroit that the plaintiff had no cause of action for breach of contract, and from a subsequent order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
The record shows the following pertinent facts: Plaintiff was general contractor for the construction of a 24 unit apartment building in Owosso, Michigan, and defendant* was subcontractor for the installation and finishing of dry-wall construction materials. A contract was executed by the parties on July 16, 1963, providing that defendant would furnish the labor and materials to complete the dry-wall work, and do additional work in the furnace rooms, for a total contract price of $9,975. The time for performance was not stipulated in the written document.
The defendant commenced performance of the contract on July 15, 1963, hiring two skilled dry-wall men from outside the area, since this type of skilled labor was difficult to obtain in Owosso and elsewhere. During the second or third week of work, the defendant had a dispute with the two dry-wall men over the amount of wages they had earned on a piecework basis. The plaintiff began to voice his concern over the fact that the dry-wall work was not being accomplished as efficiently and quickly as he believed it should. The plaintiff's apprehensions increased when the two dissident workmen threatened to assert a mechanics lien against the building and file a complaint with the 'labor board' over the matter of their wages. In actual fact, neither of these events transpired during the period in which the contract was viable between the parties.
On August 17, 1963, the plaintiff's president, Mr. Kiff, held a meeting in his office between the defendant and the workmen to resolve the wage dispute. After some discussion, Mr. Kiff, with the defendant's concurrence, gave the workmen a check for $450 in satisfaction of their immediate payroll demands and they agreed to return to the job. The next day the workmen returned and asked Mr. Kiff to cash the check. He agreed, took the check, but did not return either it or money; consequently, the workmen did not return to the job. We note, but do not discuss, the testimony in this case concerning the $200 which defendant gave Mr. Kiff at the meeting and which was later returned to defendant.
On August 20, 1963, the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff dated August 19, cancelling the contract for 'failure to furnish workmen and properly complete your work jeopardizing the contract.' The defendant stopped work and plaintiff brought an action to recover damages. The trial court found that the contract cancellation was without a just cause and plaintiff appeals.
It is clear from a review of the record that the decisive issue in this case is whether the plaintiff prevented, or rendered impossible, the completion of performance of the contract by defendant.
The trial judge found that the plaintiff had disabled the defendant from performing; we quote from his decision:
'It appears to me, Kiff, having given the check to Bausano and Schuck, (defendant's workmen) and not honoring it, knowing the dishonor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iron Workers' Local No. 25 Pen. v. Mcguire Steel, 03-71056.
...or otherwise benefit from his or her own wrongful acts." 13 WILLISTON ON CONTRACTS § 39:3 (4th ed.); Kiff Contractors, Inc. v. Beeman, 10 Mich.App. 207, 210, 159 N.W.2d 144 (Mich.App.1968) (holding general contractor could not recover for breach of contract by subcontractor where general co......
-
Harbor Land Co. v. Grosse Ile Tp.
...(1968), 9 Mich.App. 467, 157 N.W.2d 456; Levine v. Johnson (1968), 10 Mich.App. 152, 159 N.W.2d 165; Kiff Contractors, Inc., v. Beeman (1968), 10 Mich.App. 207, 159 N.W.2d 144.3 Hoffmaster v. McNett (1966), 2 Mich.App. 709, 712, 141 N.W.2d 352; Bill v. Brown (1966), 2 Mich.App. 455, 457, 14......
-
American Cas. Co., In re
...the contract "will not be reversed unless the evidence clearly preponderates in the opposite direction." Kiff Contractors, Inc. v. Beeman, 10 Mich.App. 207, 159 N.W.2d 144, 146 (1968). Our standard of review, however, is determined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hanna v. Plumer, 3......
-
Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Hakim Plast Co., 96-70059.
...for failure to perform. Ehlinger v. Bodi Lake Lumber Co., 324 Mich. 77, 89, 36 N.W.2d 311 (1949). See Kiff Contractors, Inc. v. Beeman, 10 Mich.App. 207, 210, 159 N.W.2d 144 (1968) (quoting Barton v. Gray, 57 Mich. 622, 636, 24 N.W. 638 (1885) for the principle that "no one who causes or sa......