## Facts

- Steve Landis and Nancy Weidman contracted with William Fannin Builders, Inc. to construct a custom home for $356,750 according to attached plans and specifications.
- The specifications required T1-11 exterior siding finished with two coats of semi-transparent stain in the homeowners’ chosen color.
- The homeowners selected a semi-transparent green stain (“Allagash”) after being given a stain brochure and communicating their choice to the builder.
- Fannin Builders subcontracted procurement and installation of the siding to 84 Lumber, which arranged for a separate company to stain the siding.
- Additional sheets of siding were stained at a different time than the initial batch, and the installed exterior showed a conspicuous non-uniform “patchwork” or “striped” appearance.
- A second coat did not correct the mismatch, and other efforts failed to produce a uniform appearance.
- Fannin Builders proposed covering the siding with a solid stain to mask the mismatch; the homeowners refused because it would eliminate the semi-transparent, rustic look they contracted for.
- The homeowners sued for breach of contract; the trial court found breach and awarded $66,906.24, representing the cost to replace the siding, and entered judgment for 84 Lumber on the third-party claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the builder breached the construction contract and duty of workmanlike performance by delivering exterior siding with a conspicuous, non-uniform stained appearance contrary to the contract’s aesthetic specifications.
2. Whether the proper measure of damages was the cost to replace the defective siding rather than the lesser diminution in market value of the home.
3. Whether a limited-warranty “right to cure” permitted the builder to substitute a materially different finish (solid stain) for the contracted semi-transparent appearance.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the homeowners on breach of contract.
- The court held the evidence supported findings that the siding’s patchwork appearance failed to meet contract specifications and workmanlike construction standards.
- The court affirmed the $66,906.24 award based on the cost to replace the siding, rejecting diminution-in-value as the required measure on these facts.
- The court affirmed judgment in favor of 84 Lumber on the builder’s third-party claim.

## Legal Principles

- A residential builder must perform in a workmanlike manner and in conformity with the contract’s specifications, including agreed aesthetic requirements for a custom home.
- A visible aesthetic defect can constitute a material breach when the appearance is part of the bargained-for performance.
- Contract damages aim to place the nonbreaching party in the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed as promised.
- Cost-of-repair or replacement damages may be awarded, even if exceeding diminution in value, when necessary to provide the contracted-for result and when not unreasonable in relation to the owners’ contractual expectations.
- A warranty “right to cure” does not permit a contractor to satisfy a construction contract by offering a corrective measure that would materially alter the specified finished appearance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and replacement-cost damages where the builder delivered conspicuously mismatched stained siding on a custom home, holding that restoring the uniform semi-transparent rustic exterior specified in the contract justified an award of the cost to replace the siding rather than diminution in market value.


Landis v. William Fannin Builders, Inc., 193 Ohio App. 3d 318, 951 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2011)