Joseph Pendlebury

The builder sued the homeowners for unpaid amounts on a residential construction project.

The homeowners counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and incomplete work, and also sued the municipality for negligent building inspection.

The court found that the parties had an oral contract and that the builder did not breach it by leaving the project when the homeowners stopped paying.

The court dismissed the homeowners' claims for major structural deficiencies, finding the expert evidence of the builder more reliable.

The court also dismissed the negligence claim against the municipality, finding it met the standard of reasonable care.

The homeowners were ordered to pay the builder $558,095.52 for the unpaid balance of the contract and extras, less credits for incomplete work.

A contractor sued a homeowner for the unpaid balance on a residential renovation contract, while the homeowner counterclaimed for disputed extras, incomplete work, and deficient workmanship.

The court, on a Rule 54 reference, held that the parties had agreed to progress payments tied to the value of work completed and that the homeowner fundamentally breached the contract by refusing any further payment and refusing to negotiate a reasonable compromise despite work having substantial value beyond amounts already paid.

The court conducted a detailed item-by-item review of disputed extras and credits, fixed the proper contract-plus-extras amount, and deducted credits for incomplete work and a further allowance for deficiencies.

Judgment was effectively awarded to the contractor for the net balance of $12,267.45 plus pre-judgment interest, with costs reserved and a preliminary view of no costs because of divided success.