AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case revolves around a contract dispute concerning the construction and renovation of a home owned by Defendants Paul Lewicki and Elizabeth Phillip. Benavidez Construction LLC, owned by Manuel Benavidez, was hired for the project. Despite the absence of a written contract, Defendants paid Plaintiff based on submitted invoices. Disagreements emerged over payments for "extras" - work Defendants claimed they had not pre-approved. After over three years, Plaintiff ceased work and initiated a lawsuit against Defendants for breach of contract (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendants breached the contract by failing to pay for the construction and renovation work, including agreed-upon "extras."
• Defendants: Contended that the damages awarded were unsupported by any enforceable contract, arguing there was no written agreement and they only approved payments for work explicitly agreed upon in advance (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in its determination of damages awarded to Plaintiff for "extras" and other contested work, given the absence of a written contract.
• Whether the district court's findings on the enforceability of the contract, based on the parties' course of performance, were supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff for breach of contract was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Katherine A. Wray, Megan P. Duffy, and Zachary A. Ives concurring, affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that despite the absence of a written contract, the parties had entered into an agreement for the construction and renovation work on Defendants' property. The court interpreted the district court's findings as recognizing the contract's terms were ambiguous and thus looked to the parties' course of performance to discern the agreement's terms. The court noted Defendants paid a significant portion of the invoices submitted by Plaintiff, which supported the conclusion that Defendants agreed to pay more than just the expressly approved bids. The court addressed Defendants' specific arguments against the district court's damages determinations and found sufficient evidence supported the district court's findings regarding invoices for "extras," negotiated invoice reductions, contract modification, and employment-related taxes on materials. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the district court's project-specific damages awards related to a perimeter rock wall and the installation of pavers (paras 2-23).