Plante v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1960 · Contracts

Contractssubstantial performancebreachconstruction contractdamagessubstantial performanceconstruction contractsdiminished value

Facts

The plaintiff builder constructed a house for the defendants under a contract, but conceded he omitted several items, including kitchen cabinets, gutters and downspouts, sidewalk, closet clothes poles, and an entrance seat, for which the defendants received an allowance of $1,601.95. The defendants claimed about 20 additional items of incomplete or faulty performance and argued there was no substantial performance, emphasizing that the wall between the living room and kitchen was misplaced so that the living room was more than one foot narrower than planned. Rebuilding that wall would cost about $4,000, but the wall was fully built, the house was decorated, the defendants were living in it, and real-estate experts testified the smaller living room did not affect the house's market price. The plans were a stock floor plan without detailed construction drawings or blueprints, and many construction problems were resolved through practical experience during the work.

Issue

Whether the builder substantially performed the house-construction contract despite defects and omissions, including the misplaced living-room wall. If so, what measure of damages applies to the owners' claims for incomplete and faulty construction: cost of repair or diminution in value?

Rule

In a building contract, substantial performance exists when the performance meets the essential purpose of the contract; strict compliance with every detail is not required unless the contract makes those details essential. When a contractor has substantially but incompletely performed, recovery is the contract price less the owner's damages. Damages for faulty or incomplete construction are generally the difference between the value of the house as built and its value if constructed according to the plans and specifications, although cost of repair may be used for small, separable defects that can be remedied without reconstructing a substantial part of the building or causing unreasonable economic waste.

🔒

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 Madison, Wisconsin, Larkin Homes agreed to build a residence for Nina Ortega using a standard floor plan and ordinary printed specifications with a few handwritten changes. The house was completed and Nina moved in, but several minor items remained unfinished, including two closet rods and a mailbox post, and one hallway doorway was framed a few inches narrower than shown on the plan.

If Larkin Homes sues for the unpaid contract balance, which is the strongest argument that it substantially performed?

Explanation. The majority rule is that substantial performance in a house-construction contract asks whether the performance meets the essential purpose of the contract. Strict compliance with every detail is not required unless the contract makes such details essential. The court also rejected any mathematical percentage test and did not treat owner dissatisfaction alone as controlling.