– P (Ever-Tite) was in agreement with D, to do work on their roof
– Green constructed a contract, “that was binding upon written acceptance…..commencing performance of the work.”
o Green knew that the work from Ever-Tite would be done on credit (obtain credit reports) from lending institutions to finance the project.
o After this was completed, NINE days later, Ever-Tite loaded up their truck and went to the work sight….Wanted breach of contract.
– Trial court ruled in favor of the D, Green.
– Appellate court overruled the decision in favor of Ever-Tite
– Trial court stated:
o The Defendant had “timely notified” the plaintiff’s…The notice to the plaintiff’s workmen upon arrival with the materials was sufficient and timely to signify their intention to withdraw the contract.
– Was Ever-Tite given proper warning (sufficient and timely) to signify there intention to withdraw their contract?
– No, it was not sufficient or timely.
– “When a contract does NOT specify the time within it was to be accepted or within which the work was to have been commenced, a reasonable time must be allowed therefore in accordance with the facts and circumstances and the evident intention of the parties.”
– Defendant’s knew that Ever-Tite had to get financing for the project (expected delays)
o No time limit specified
– Plaintiff did not have an unreasonable delay in time (nine days) and proceeded with due diligence in requiring a loan.
– “The contract was accepted by plaintiff by the commencement of the performance of the work contracted to be done.”
– Main reason – the commencement began with the loading of the trucks with the necessary materials in Shreveport and transporting such materials and the workmen to the defendants residence.
o Thus actual commencement of the work therefore began before any notice of dissent by defendant’s was given plaintiff.
***differing view from trail court judge****
The notification to withdraw from work was not sufficient and/or timely.
– Reasonable diligence and within good time…