Legal Blog

Sloppy

Sloppy can refer to many things on a construction project: sloppy work, sloppy safety measures etc. In Delaurentis Construction Ltd. v. Sentinel Polymers Canada Inc., a 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, sloppy refers to the manner in which the parties set up their contractual dealings.

Nutshell 

The owner needed a contractor to demolish and renovate leasehold premises. The owner wanted the work completed as soon as possible because the sooner it was done, the sooner the owner could move in and open for business.

The owner obtained a CAT layout drawing. The contractor twice walked through the building and then quoted the work. It was not a large job; the quote was for approximately $45,000. The owner accepted the quote and the contractor started the work.

The project did not go well. The owner and the contractor argued about the progress of the work, the number of men on site, and other matters. Within a couple of months, the owner threw the contractor off the site. However, as the contractor’s principal put it, “he accepted with a measure of relief, (the owner’s) instruction to leave the worksite.”

The owner alleged that the contractor breached the contract because it was not proceeding quickly enough. The contractor commenced an action for payment for the work that it had performed and the owner counterclaimed for delay.

Contract 

What is the first question that you should ask? If you did not say, “What did the contract state?” you asked the wrong question.

In this case, the written contract stated precious little. From what we could see, there was but an oral acceptance to a bare bones written quote. Accordingly, the trial judge had to piece together the contract from oral testimony.

Ultimately, after listening to four days of evidence, the judge concluded that the contract did not contain any provision, written or implied, that the contractor would complete the work by a particular date; accordingly, the judge held that the contract had to be completed within a reasonable time. “What is reasonable, of course, depends on the nature of the work and the circumstances under which the work was undertaken.”

Result 

The judge held that the owner delayed the contractor because it did not supply the correct detailed drawings in a timely manner. The judge felt that it was unreasonable for the owner to expect the construction to proceed based solely on the original layout drawing. Further, the owner had ordered extras that also delayed the project.

The judge therefore held that the owner improperly terminated the contract, was liable for the work that the contractor performed, and could not set off for delay.

Although a proper contract would not have guaranteed that there would be no dispute, it would have gone a long way to resolving it. The owner obviously had unrealistic expectations that would have been dealt with at the beginning of the project, rather than at the end.