## Facts

- A homeowner contracted with a remodeling partnership to renovate multiple rooms for $6,780 under a written agreement that described major work but lacked detailed specifications and design sketches.
- The project was delayed beyond contract dates, and the homeowner assented to the delays.
- Trial evidence indicated portions of the work were below local industry standards and not completed in a good and workmanlike manner as required by the contract.
- During construction, the homeowner directed the contractor and workers not to enter the home on a particular day; a worker entered anyway.
- After discovering the entry, the homeowner barred the contractor and his workers from returning to the home.
- The contractor repeatedly sought permission to re-enter to complete and correct work, but the homeowner refused.
- The contractor billed the homeowner $2,956.40, representing the unpaid portion of the contract price; the homeowner refused to pay.
- The homeowner sued for defective workmanship and the cost of redoing work; the contractor counterclaimed for the unpaid balance, asserting he was prevented from completing performance.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that the homeowner prevented the contractor’s completion, excusing incomplete and non-substantial performance.
2. Whether the damages award used an incorrect measure by effectively awarding the unpaid contract balance without deducting costs avoided and by including unproven or non-consensual extras.
3. Whether the attorney-fee award could stand given the need to reassess damages and prevailing-party status.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment insofar as it determined the homeowner prevented the contractor’s complete performance.
- The court reversed and remanded the damages award because it applied an erroneous measure of damages for a contractor prevented from completing performance.
- The court vacated the attorney-fee award and remanded for reconsideration of the prevailing party after damages were recalculated.
- The court rejected challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings to the extent they sought reversal of the prevention/breach determination.

## Legal Principles

- Every contract includes an implied duty not to hinder the other party’s performance; unreasonable prevention or interference can constitute a breach and excuse the other party’s incomplete performance.
- In construction disputes, an owner’s refusal to provide access may support a finding that the owner prevented completion and cannot rely on resulting noncompletion to deny liability.
- When an owner wrongfully prevents completion, the contractor’s expectancy recovery is the contract price minus the costs the contractor would have incurred to finish (costs avoided), and it does not include extras that are not adequately proved or not shown to have been authorized.
- Attorney-fee entitlement based on prevailing-party status must be reassessed when the damages determination is materially altered on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that the homeowner’s denial of access supported liability under the prevention doctrine, but it required recalculation of the contractor’s damages using the contract price minus avoided completion costs and excluding unsupported extras, which also required reconsideration of prevailing-party attorney fees.


Sullivan v. Bullock, 124 Idaho 738, 864 P.2d 184 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993)