Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Texas Courts of Civil Appeals - 529 S.W.2d 258
tl;dr:
Defendant failed to install roofing according to the terms of contract with Plaintiff (streaked tiles that were not of uniform color).Video Summary
Case Summary
In the case of Grun Roofing & Construction Co. v. Cope (1975), the Texas Court of Civil Appeals ruled on a contract disagreement between a homeowner and a roofing company. The case involved the legal principle of substantial performance, which permits a contractor to be paid under a contract if they have made a genuine effort to fulfill the contract's terms even if they have made a minor mistake.
Mrs. Cope, the homeowner, had hired Grun Roofing to install a new roof on her home for $648, with the color to be "russet glow." After installation, Mrs. Cope noticed yellow streaks on the roof. Grun Roofing tried to fix the issue but couldn't get the shingles to match the correct color. Mrs. Cope sued Grun Roofing to remove a mechanic's lien and for damages due to breaching the contract. Grun Roofing countersued for payment under the contract. The trial court found in favor of Mrs. Cope and Grun Roofing appealed.
The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that Grun Roofing hadn't substantially performed the contract. When applying the doctrine of substantial performance to a case involving construction/design, the mere taste/preference of the homeowner may be enough to determine that there was a breach of contract.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages and to set aside a mechanic's lien. The court awarded the plaintiff $122.60 in damages, set aside the mechanic's lien, and denied the defendant's cross-claim. The defendant appealed the judgment, arguing that the lower court erred in denying their cross-claim. The jury found that the defendant did not perform the contract in a good and workmanlike manner, did not substantially perform the contract, and that the plaintiff received no benefits from the labor and materials provided by the defendant. The defendant's complaint is multifarious and cannot support a factual insufficiency of the evidence point on appeal. The defendant admits that they were obligated to install a roof of uniform color, but defined the color as "brown varied." The plaintiff noticed yellow streaks on the new roof installed by the defendant, which were due to a difference in color or shade of some of the shingles. The defendant attempted to fix the issue but the replacement shingles did not match the rest of the roof. Photographs presented as evidence showed that the roof was not of a uniform color and appeared to have been patched. The defendant only replaced the non-matching shingles on two sides, leaving the southern side with the yellow streaks still visible. The roof still appears streaky on three sides after nine or ten months. An expert testified that a blended roof could be achieved with proper shingle application, but it is inferred that a completely new roof is necessary to achieve uniform coloration since matching shingles cannot be found to replace the nonconforming ones.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.