Dr. Julie Clark, a Tennessee veterinarian, wanted to fix up her home before selling. After a meeting on site, Dr. Clark selected Jeffrey Givens, a handyman, to do the work.
According to Dr. Clark, she agreed
to pay Givens $9,775 for a total of four tasks:
- $8,500 to paint the house,
- $400 to remove and repair kitchen cabinets,
- $675 to strip, prime and paint those cabinets, and
- $200 to replace the bathroom countertops.
Givens didn’t remember it that way. He
remembered bidding $11,575 for the entire job, including work on the driveway
and garage floor, painting and replacing handrails on the porch. Dr. Clark admitted
asking for a quote on that extra work. But Dr. Clark insisted none of this
extra work was authorized.
Dr. Clark hoped the work would be finished
in two weeks. But she didn’t specify a deadline or completion date. Givens estimated
six-weeks would be needed just for painting the inside of the house. But his
understanding was he could take as much time as necessary to do a good job.
Dr. Clark kept detailed notes on their
conversation and the bid price. But there was no written contract. You know
what’s going to happen next. When the job ran off the rails, Dr. Clark and
Givens launched a 7-year court battle. Here’s how it happened.
Dr. Clark advanced Givens $2,500 to
start work. That was January 2016. Two weeks later, she checked on the job and
was disappointed. Not much progress. Givens assured her he would pick up the pace.
Givens asked for and got another $2,000.
Dr. Clark returned to the job site a
week later. Still little progress. According to Dr. Clark, she gave Givens a
deadline. She would hire someone else if he didn’t do better in the coming
week. Two weeks later, she hired a new painter.
Now What?
Dr. Clark demanded return of $3,700,
part of the $4,500 she had paid Givens. When Givens didn’t pay, she filed suit
for breach of an oral contract. In court, Givens claimed he was actually due
more than the $4,500 he had already been paid. The trial court found there was
a “mutual mistake” in an oral contract and entered a $5,075 judgment in favor of
Givens. Both Dr. Clark and Givens appealed.
The appellate court reversed the
trial court decision and remanded the case back to the trial court for another
decision. After an attempt at mediation, the second trial court decision
awarded Givens $4,500, the amount he had already been paid. This time, the
trial court ruled there was no oral contract. Givens could collect for his time
and materials and nothing more. Every contract requires a “meeting of the minds”.
Dr. Clark and Givens had never agreed on the cost, contract terms or the work to
be done. Again, both Dr. Clark and Givens appealed the trial court decision.
Last month (November 2023) the
appellate court affirmed the second trial court decision. “The oral contract
contemplated by the parties was not sufficiently definite to be enforceable
because the parties did not agree on essential terms.”
After seven years, including two
trials, mediation and two appellate decisions, the case of Clark v. Givens may
finally be resolved. My advice. It’s easy to avoid legal nightmares like this.
Take a few minutes to write a good, enforceable contract, even for simple jobs.
There’s no better tool for creating a meeting of the minds than Construction Contract Writer. The trial version is free.
Note for Tennessee contractors: Anyone
can work for wages. But Tennessee is one of 31 states that requires a written
contract for home improvement work. Tennessee’s Home Improvement Contractor Act
prohibits oral contracts on home improvement jobs.
