 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyman Lumber of Wisconsin3/29/2005
without discussion, that the contract in question was one for services. The certified question was whether the economic loss doctrine applies to a service contract, not whether the contract was for services or goods.
. In any event, we conclude that the economic loss doctrine bars the negligent construction claim. We look to the product purchased by the buyer, not the product sold by the vendor. Bay Breeze Condo. Ass'n v. Norco Windows, Inc., 2002 WI App 205, , 257 Wis. 2d 511, 651 N.W.2d 738. A contract for a completed structure-like a house or other building-is as a matter of law a contract for goods, not services:
Generally, house buyers have little or no interest in how or where the individual components ... are obtained. They are content to let the builder produce the finished product, i.e., a house. These homeowners bought finished products-dwellings-not the individual components of those dwellings. They bargained for the finished products, not their various components. The [allegedly defective component] became an integral part of the finished product....
Id., (citation omitted). Much like the condominium owners in Bay Breeze, Yourchuck bargained for "the finished products, not their various components." Id.
. Thus, "the economic loss doctrine applies to building construction defects when, as here, the defective product is a component part of an integrated structure or finished product." Id., . The items about which Yourchuck complains, like the insulation, are integrated parts of the structure, "having no function apart from the buildings for which they were manufactured." Id., . The trial court properly concluded the economic loss doctrine bars the negligent construction counterclaim.
Sufficiency of the Evidence of Damages
. With Yourchuck's counterclaims dismissed, all that remained were the contract disputes-that is, Lyman's claim that Yourchuck breached through nonpayment for the substantially completed structure and Yourchuck's counterclaim that Lyman breached through poor and incomplete construction. Yourchuck argues there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that Lyman substantially performed, the basis underlying the court's damage award.
. "When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply a highly deferential standard of review." Jacobson v. American Tool Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 384, 389, 588 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1998). "Furthermore, the fact finder's determination and judgment will not be disturbed if more than one inference can be drawn from the evidence." Id. The trial court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless we conclude that they are clearly erroneous. Wis. Stat. ยง 805.17(2).
. "To recover on an uncompleted construction contract on a claim of having substantially, but not fully, performed it, the contractor must make a good faith effort to perform and substantially perform his agreement." Kreyer v. Driscoll, 39 Wis. 2d 540, 544, 159 N.W.2d 680 (1968). Most cases considering the substantial performance doctrine involve defective work or work contrary to the contract requiring substantial amounts of money to make the work conform. Id. at 545. "If a construction contract is substantially performed, the builder can recover the contract price less setoffs, if any." Klug & Smith Co. v. Sommer, 83 Wis. 2d 378, 386, 265 N.W.2d 269 (1978).
. The test for substantial performance is not strict compliance with the details of the contract, unless all details are of the essence, but whether the builder's performance meets the essential purposes of the contact. Id. Substantial performance presents a factual question, see Stevens Constr. Corp.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|