ILNews

Company’s offer to replace driveway an enforceable agreement

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a small claims judgment in favor of a concrete company regarding whether the company had to follow through on replacing a driveway for a customer who was unhappy with the work a year later.

David Vance hired Rock Solid Concrete Inc. and Francisco Lozano to do concrete work at his home in the summer of 2009. In December 2010, Vance complained that the driveway had some pitting and scaling. Rock Solid believed their work was not defective and a third-party inspected the driveway. In a non-binding decision, the concrete testing company determined that the damage was due to indirect salt application when snow would melt from cars onto the driveway.

Rock Solid offered to power-wash the driveway and seal it as a one-time customer accommodation, but Vance rejected the offer. In June 2011, the two parties agreed that Rock Solid would try to replace the driveway by the end of August 2011. When no work had begun by that date and the company didn’t respond to Vance’s inquiries, he filed suit in September 2011.

The small claims court found the company made a goodwill gesture that wasn’t an enforceable contract, but the Court of Appeals ruled the parties entered into an enforceable agreement. The agreement settled their dispute as to the cause of the damage to the driveway and the agreement’s purpose was to avoid litigation, Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in David Vance v. Francisco Lozano, et al., 02A03-1203-SC-142.  
 
The settlement of a doubtful claim is sufficient consideration for a compromise if the claim is made fairly and in good faith, even if possibly meritless, she continued. There’s no evidence that Vance hasn’t acted fairly or in good faith.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT