Performance. Steven McPheters, a house builder and developer, hired Terry Tentinger, who did business as New Horizon Construction, to do some touching up and repainting on one of McPheters's new houses. Tentinger worked two days, billed McPheters $420

Question

(a three-man crew for fourteen hours at $30 per hour), and offered to return to the house to remedy any defects in his workmanship at no cost. McPheters objected to the number of hours on the bill—although he did not express dissatisfaction with the work—and offered Tentinger $250. Tentinger refused to accept this amount and filed a suit in an Idaho state court to collect the full amount. McPheters filed a counterclaim, alleging that Tentinger failed to perform the job in a workmanlike manner, resulting in $2,500 in damages, which it would cost $500 to repair. Tentinger's witnesses testified that although some touch up work needed to be done, the job had been performed in a workmanlike manner. McPheters presented testimony indicating that the workmanship was so defective as to render it commercially unreasonable. On what basis could the court rule in Tentinger's favor? Explain fully.

Answer 1

Performance
The court concluded that despite some minor defects, Tentinger had substantially performed the painting job and awarded Tentinger $420 on his bill (plus $6,873.75 in attorney fees and $900.02 in costs). McPheters appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, arguing that Tentinger did not substantially perform the contract. This court affirmed the lower court's award and added the fees and costs of the appeal. The state intermediate appellate court explained that "[s]ubstantial performance is performance which, despite a deviation from contract requirements, provides the important and essential benefits of the contract to the promisee." Here, "although his workmanship was not completely free of defects, Tentinger had substantially performed his obligation pursuant to the contract and was willing to return to McPheters's home to remedy any defects in his workmanship at no cost. This finding is supported by substantial and competent evidence, including witness testimony that although some touch up work needed to be completed on the McPheters home, the job had been performed in a workmanlike manner."