Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER PROTECTION—Wash. App.: Failure to inform a homeowner of a delay did not result in damages, (Jul 31, 2013)
Law Firms Mentioned:Law Office of Gwendolyn G. Connolly | Ratzel & Associates LLC
By Jody Coultas, J.D.
A homeowner failed to show that a contractor’s failure to inform of a delay in a construction caused a pecuniary loss, a Wisconsin appellate court has held Grand View Windows, Inc. v. Brandt, July 30, 2013, Kessler, J.).
After a homeowner refused to make a final payment on a construction contract for completed siding work, the construction company filed for breach of contract. The homeowner counterclaimed that the company breached the contract by not completing the siding work and violated the Home Improvement Practices Act (HIPA).
The HIPA prohibits misrepresentations in order to induce contract entry or payment, and requires home improvement contractors to give customers timely notice if a delay in performance is to occur.
A jury found that the company did not misrepresent facts to induce the homeowner into a contract or payment, but found that the company failed to provide a timely notice of an impending delay in the contract performance. The damages were $250.
There was no evidence to support the jury’s $250 damage award, according to the court. The homeowner argued that the jury verdict should be doubled under §100.20(5), while the company argued that there was no evidence to support the jury verdict. The test for determining whether a representation caused pecuniary loss is whether the plaintiff would have acted in its absence, and the plaintiff must show that a causal connection between a prohibited trade practice under §110 and the damage incurred.
The company failed to give the homeowner notice that there would be a delay in beginning or completing her siding work, and did not dispute evidence of damage done by the delay. However, there was no evidence that the company’s failure to give notice of the impending delay resulted in the homeowner’s pecuniary loss. The homeowner’s evidence supported the breach of contract claim, but did not support a finding that not telling the homeowner about the delay caused damages in the amount of $250 or any other sum.
The cases are Nos. 2012AP8 and 2012AP746.
Attorneys: James C. Ratzel (Ratzel & Associates LLC) for Grand View Windows, Inc. Gwendolyn G. Connelly (Law Office of Gwendolyn G. Connolly) for Christina Brandt.
Cases: ConsumerProtection WisconsinNews