A dispute arises whether a contractor had an enforceable contract with a client. judgment was entered for the contractor, who the brief reports claimed compensation on a time-and-materials basis. The client’s argument that the contract was for a fixed price was evidently rejected below. We seem to have an issue of whether subsequent actions of the parties can cure an otherwise fatal indefinitness of the terms of their bargain, though the brief does not seem to capture this aspect of the case.
More after the break …
Gordon v. Heller, 2014 WL 462933 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D.), provides an interesting illustration of the desirability of making a counterclaim.
The case involves claims by a real estate agent, who also provided staging furniture, against the former client/homeowners. As reported in the brief of the appellants/homeowners, following termination of the listing, the staging furniture remained for quite some time. The brief reports an evident judgment for the provider of staging furniture, although the brief challenges the existence of a pertinent contract. It notes there was not a signed contract–the precise terms of any oral or implicit agreement as to terms are not detailed.
The brief does not discuss application of UCC Article 2A to the arrangements (e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. 400.2A-201 (writing requirements)). Perhaps additional briefing will illuminate that choice.
For the moment, however, we can note the homeowners make an interesting argument. They sought in a counterclaim recovery for the value of having had their house used as a storage facility for the furniture. They allege the lessor undertook to remove the furniture but did not do so promptly. I look forward to seeing the respondent’s discussion of these issues.