## Facts

- J.O. Hooker & Sons (Hooker) contracted with the Bessemer Public Housing Authority in Bessemer, Alabama, to renovate multiple residences, a project that required removal and replacement of kitchen cabinetry.
- Hooker entered into a subcontract with Roberts Cabinet Co. (Roberts) under which Roberts would remove existing cabinets and furnish and install new cabinets and related items in accordance with the job’s plans and specifications.
- During performance, the parties disputed who had the obligation to haul away, store, or otherwise dispose of the removed cabinets.
- Hooker contended that Roberts was responsible for disposal based on the subcontract’s reference to the project plans/specifications and Hooker’s overall obligations on the prime contract.
- Roberts maintained that the subcontract required removal and installation work but did not assign Roberts the separate duty (or cost) of off-site handling or disposal of the old cabinets.
- The dispute stalled the work, and Hooker sent Roberts a fax stating that Hooker considered the subcontract “null and void,” effectively terminating Roberts’s continuing performance.
- Roberts sued Hooker for breach of contract after performance had begun.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Roberts’s favor on liability and later denied Hooker’s post-trial motions for a new trial and for remittitur after a damages award in Roberts’s favor.
- Hooker appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the subcontract’s reference to performance “as per plans and specs” incorporate obligations from the prime contract or project documents so as to require Roberts to dispose of the old cabinets?
2. If the subcontract did not impose that disposal duty, did Hooker breach the subcontract by declaring it null and void and preventing Roberts from completing performance?
3. Was the damages award supported by the evidence, and if not, was Hooker entitled to remittitur as to any unsupported portion?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the determination that the subcontract did not place on Roberts an obligation to dispose of or otherwise handle the removed cabinets beyond the removal work specified in the subcontract scope.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Roberts on liability, concluding that Hooker’s unilateral termination constituted a breach because it prevented Roberts from completing the subcontract.
- The court upheld the damages award in general but required remittitur to the extent any discrete component of the award lacked adequate evidentiary support.
- The case was otherwise affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- A subcontract incorporates other contract documents only when the incorporating language is clear enough to show that the parties intended to import the specific additional obligation at issue; general references to “plans and specifications” do not automatically import unrelated risk-allocation terms.
- Courts determine a subcontractor’s duties from the subcontract’s text and the documents it clearly incorporates; a court will not add a significant cost-bearing obligation (such as off-site disposal of removed materials) absent contractual language assigning that responsibility.
- A party that unilaterally terminates a contract without contractual justification, and thereby prevents the other party’s continued performance, commits a breach.
- On review of a jury’s contract-damages award, a court may order remittitur when a separable portion of the award is not supported by sufficient evidence, while leaving the supported remainder intact.

## Conclusion

J.O. Hooker & Sons v. Roberts Cabinet Co. held that Roberts’s subcontract to remove and replace cabinets did not, by a general reference to plans and specifications, shift to Roberts a separate obligation to dispose of the removed cabinets. Because Hooker declared the subcontract null and void and cut off Roberts’s continued performance without contractual justification, Hooker was liable for breach. The appellate court upheld the liability ruling and sustained the damages award except for any specific, unsupported component, which was subject to remittitur.


J.O. Hooker & Sons v. Roberts Cabinet Co., 683 So. 2d 396 (1996)