Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Citation
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Parent Document
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2005-01-14
Other Sections in This Document (57)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Full Text
1,798 chars¶ 29. The identical circumstances arose in Fenner & Shea Construction Co. v. Wadkins, 511 P.2d 924 (Colo. Ct. App. 1973), in which a construction contractor brought suit for breach of contract for failure to pay and the owners counterclaimed, arguing that the contractor had breached the contract by performing in an unworkmanlike manner. Id. at 925. The trial court found that the construction company “had substantially performed its obligations under the contract and that to the extent that it had failed to perform fully, its judgment against the [owners] would be reduced in an amount equal to that necessary to cure the complained of defects in workmanship.” Id. The owners argued on appeal that the contractor should not receive fees because the defective work was a breach of the contract and therefore the contractor could not enforce the contract. The appeals court rejected this argument, holding that where a party substantially performs, he “cannot be charged with a breach” such that he cannot recover attor-*88ne/s fees under a contractual provision providing for recovery of such fees. Id.; see also Weidner v. Szostek, 614 N.E.2d 879, 882-83 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (concluding that where contractor has substantially performed its contractual obligations, it can collect attorney’s fees under contractual provision despite an offset for “the amount necessary to repair or replace the items not completed within the terms of the contract”). Contrary to the majority’s statement, Fenner directly addresses plaintiff’s contractual claim. In Fenner, the trial court found that the contractor’s defects in workmanship breached the contract, but awarded attorney’s fees because the contractor had substantially performed and the amounts withheld were far in excess of a reasonable setoff.