This judgment arises from a summary trial converted from a motion brought by the Owners (defendants) seeking to declare the plaintiff's (Quality's) claim for lien expired and to dismiss the action against them.
The court addressed three issues: the applicable Construction Act, the existence and nature of a contract between the Owners and Quality, and Quality's last date of supply.
The court found that the old Construction Act applied.
It concluded that no oral guarantee agreement existed between Quality and the Owners, and even if it did, it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Furthermore, the court found that Quality failed to prove its claim for lien was preserved in time, as its last lienable supply of services and materials occurred before the 45-day preservation period.
The judge made strong adverse credibility findings against Quality's witnesses and found the Owners' witness credible.
