London Bucket Co. v. Stewart

Kentucky Court of Appeals · Contracts

ContractsSpecific PerformanceBuilding and Construction ContractsRemediesspecific performanceconstruction contractbuilding contractoradequate remedy at law

Facts

Stewart contracted with London Bucket Company to furnish and install a heating system for a large motel, with the company guaranteeing that the building would be heated to 75 degrees in winter and supervising the work. Stewart alleged that within a year the company installed the system in an incomplete, unskilled, and unworkmanlike manner, never finished it, and used materials of such size, type, and quality that the system did not reasonably perform its contemplated purpose. Stewart sued for specific performance compelling completion and proper installation before cold weather, and also initially sought damages, but elected specific performance when required to choose. London Bucket defended in part by alleging mutual cancellation of the completion portion of the contract, which the trial court rejected.

Issue

May a court of equity specifically enforce a contract requiring a contractor to return, correct defective work, and complete installation of a building heating system? More specifically, does Stewart's pleading state a cause of action for specific performance rather than an action at law for damages?

Rule

Specific performance will not ordinarily be decreed for building construction contracts because damages are generally an adequate remedy at law and courts are not equipped to superintend performance. Difficulty in proving damages alone is not enough to bring such a case within any exception.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nora Bennett hired Ridgeview Mechanical, a private contractor, to install a commercial sprinkler system in her newly built warehouse. Ridgeview installed part of the piping, used undersized components in several areas, and stopped work before the system could pass inspection.

Nora sues in equity asking the court to order Ridgeview to return, replace the defective parts, and finish the installation before winter inventory arrives. Ridgeview moves to dismiss, arguing Nora has an adequate remedy at law. What is the best result?

Explanation. The majority rule applied here is that building construction contracts ordinarily are not specifically enforced. When the plaintiff wants the contractor to go back, correct defective work, and complete the job, damages are generally considered an adequate remedy, and equity is disfavored because courts are not equipped to superintend performance. (Derived from London Bucket Co. v. Stewart (n.d.).)