Reynolds v. Armstead

Colorado Supreme Court · Contracts

ContractsSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachQuantum Meruitsubstantial performancematerial breachconstruction contractexpress contract

Facts

Armstead and Roper entered an oral contract under which Armstead would build a brick veneer addition to Roper's house for $535.25. Armstead expressly promised to use new brick matching as closely as possible the color and appearance of Roper's existing brickwork. The trial court found that Armstead failed to use brick that reasonably conformed to the existing brickwork, although the veneer was otherwise soundly constructed. The court reassessed Roper's damages at $267.63, effectively finding that the mismatch impaired the value of the contract by about fifty percent, and entered judgment for Armstead for the remaining $267.62.

Issue

Whether Armstead's construction amounted to substantial performance so that he could recover on the express contract despite failing to use reasonably matching brick. If not, whether the judgment could still be affirmed on another theory supported by the facts and evidence presented.

Rule

Substantial performance permitting recovery on a contract requires a good-faith attempt to strictly and fully perform, with only slight or inadvertent omissions or departures that do not affect the value of the structure and are capable of remedy by reducing the contract price. Deviations in trifling particulars that do not materially detract from the benefit of literal performance may still constitute substantial compliance, but a material breach that substantially reduces the expected benefit bars recovery on the express contract.

🔒

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 Santa Fe, Nora Velasquez hired Summit Grove Masonry, owned by Eli Turner, to build a stucco garden wall for $18,000. Eli expressly promised to match the wall's color and texture as closely as possible to Nora's existing adobe-style home, but he used a noticeably different finish that left the wall structurally sound while cutting the project's value to Nora by about 40 percent.

If Eli sues for the contract price less an offset for Nora's damages, what is the strongest argument against recovery on the express contract?

Explanation. Substantial performance requires a good-faith attempt to strictly and fully perform, with only slight or inadvertent departures that do not materially affect value. Here, the parties bargained for aesthetic as well as functional acceptability, and the mismatch materially reduced the benefit Nora expected. That makes the breach material rather than trifling, so Eli cannot recover on the express contract. (Derived from Reynolds v. Armstead (n.d.).)