Contract – Architect – Animal hospital

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff has brought suit claiming not to have been paid in full for its work to design renovations for an animal hospital, neither party is entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, but the plaintiff should be granted partial summary judgment on the defendant’s counterclaims for intentional fraud and violation of G.L.c. 93A.

“[Plaintiff] RFA is not entitled to summary judgment on its claims because a reasonable jury could find that RFA materially breached its contract and [defendant Todd] Prince therefore had no further obligation to perform. … A jury could find that RFA miscalculated the largest facility that could be built without a variance because it failed to exclude the portion of the property that is within the right-of-way of a public street, as a result RFA misled Prince as to how large a facility could be constructed as of right (without a variance), and this was a material breach of RFA’s express contractual obligation to perform its services in a manner while exercising the degree of care that a reasonable architect would exercise under similar conditions.

“Prince is not entitled to summary judgment on RFA’s claims either, however, because a reasonable jury could rule in RFA’s favor.

“A jury could find that RFA never breached its contractual duty to do its work in a manner consistent with the standard of care expected of an architect in similar circumstances. … Architects at RFA may testify as to the applicable standard of care, and a jury could credit their testimony if it wished.

“Alternatively, a jury could find that RFA’s alleged initial miscalculation was a breach of contract but that this breach was immaterial because Prince ultimately asked RFA to develop plans for a larger facility after RFA told him that a variance would probably be needed to construct such a building. And though Prince insists that RFA also breached the contract by billing for its additional work on a flat fee basis when it was required to bill by the hour, a jury could find that this alleged breach was immaterial because RFA’s flat fee was lower than the amount it could have charged if it billed by the hour. If a jury were to reach the quantum meruit claim, it could find that RFA is entitled to fair compensation for its work and reject Prince’s assertion that the plans drawn by RFA were useless, since Prince has not mustered any evidence that he could not have obtained a zoning variance that would allow Prince to build the facility designed by RFA. …
“RFA is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on Prince’s counterclaims for intentional fraud and under c. 93A because there is no evidence that RFA made any false statements upon which Prince relied to his detriment, and therefore no evidence that RFA engaged in any unfair or deceptive conduct. …”

Rauhaus Freedenfeld & Associates LLP v. Prince (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-024-19) (5 pages) (Salinger, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Docket No. 1684CV03686-BLS2) (March 8, 2019).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.