CASE SUMMARY $11\mathrm{.}5$: Ed Wolfe Construction, Inc. v$.$ Richard Knight and Luann Knight, $2014$ IL App $(5$th$)$

Substantial Performance

The Knights hired Wolfe Construction to repair the fire damage sustained in their home under a "fixed price contract" where the Knights agreed to pay for anything not covered by their homeowner's insurance policy. Wolfe completed $95$ percent of the requested work but was then terminated by the Knights because they were dissatisfied with the work. Part of the dissatisfaction related to delays, which Wolfe attributed to the Knights requesting that the house be repainted when they did not like the color they had chosen. Similar issues arose involving cabinetry that had to be moved once it was installed and a concrete step that required redoing an entire concrete floor. Wolfe sued for the balance outstanding on the contract. The Knights countersued for breach of contract damages due to material breach.

CASE QUESTIONS

Is a contractor required to perform work perfectly? What is required of a contractor?

Do the facts in this case suggest Wolfe acted in good faith? Who should prevail in this case?