IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR SUSSEX COUNTY

JACQUELINE CHANNELS, )

Plaintiff, §

v. § C.A. No. CPU6-15-000l67
TROY DESHIELDS, §

Defendant, §

Tasha l\/l. Stevens, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiff.
William B. Wilgus, Esq., Attorney for Defendant.

Subrnitted: June 13, 20l8
Decided; August 6, 20l 8

DECISION AFTER TRIAL
This is a breach of contract action involving the allegedly unworkrnanlil<e construction of
a pole building The Court held a bench trial on June l3, 2018, and at the close of trial reserved
decision
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The testimony and exhibits presented at trial establish the following Frorn 2007 to 2012,
Plaintiff Jacqueline Channels owned and operated a hair salon in l\/Iillsboro, DelaWare. ln
Decernber 2012, l\/ls. Channels closed the business, intending to operate a salon out of her horne
in Millsboro.
ln furtherance of her intention, l\/ls. Channels contacted Sussex County, received
permission to operate a salon out of her horne, and began looking for a contractor to build a

structure Where she Would operate her salon. First, l\/ls. Channels contacted Delrnarva Pole

Buildings, but the price was too high. Some time later, l\/ls. Channels saw a sign in a yard for
Deshields Construction, the business name used by Defendant Troy Deshields
Discussz`ons Between MS. Channels and Mr. Deshields

Ms. Channels testified that she was not certain regarding when she first contacted l\/lr.
Deshields, but it was in 2013, possibly June. l\/ls. Channels and l\/lr. Deshields spoke twice on the
telephone prior to meeting in person The content of the parties’ conversations, both on the
telephone and in person, is extrinsic evidencel that forms the basis of l\/ls. Channels’ argument that
l\/lr. Deshields agreed to build Ms, Channels a salon and, therefore, the parties’ written agreement
should be read in that light

According to l\/ls. Channels, she informed l\/lr. Deshields more than once, first during their
telephone conversations and later when they met in person, that she wanted to operate a salon out
of her home and she wanted to know whether l\/lr. Deshields could build her a salon. l\/ls. Channels
testified that l\/lr. Deshields affirmed that he would build her a salon. lnez Davis, l\/ls. Channels’
mother, also testified that l\/lr. Deshields affirmed to her after construction began that he would
, build l\/ls. Channels a salon.

l\/lr. Deshields testified that he only builds pole buildings, and although he was aware that
l\/ls. Channels wanted to operate a salon out of the structure she wanted built, l\/lr. Deshields
testified that he did not agree to build l\/ls. Channels a salon. According to l\/lr. Deshields, l\/ls.
Channels would finish turning the pole building he would build into a salon some time in the
future, i.e. after l\/lr. Deshields finished construction of the pole building As described by l\/lr.

Deshields, the process of turning a pole building into a salon would require substantial additional

 

l Eagle [na.’us., ]nc. v. De Vz`lbiss Heczlth Care, ]nC., 702 A.2d l228, 1233 (Del. l997) (“ln
construing an ambiguous contractual provision, a court may consider evidence of prior agreements
and communications of the parties as well as trade usage or course of dealing.”).

2

work beyond the construction of a pole building, such as the installation of insulation, interior wall
surfaces, and electrical wiring

When l\/ls. Channels and Mr. Deshields met in person, l\/lr. Deshields showed l\/ls. Channels
his advertisement in the Sussex Guide as an example of the kind of buildings he constructs l\/lr.
Deshields identified Defendant’s Exhibit l as his advertisement in the Sussex Guide. The
advertisement prominently features the text “DESHIELDS POLE BUlLDlNGS” and shows
pictures of the exteriors of pole buildings The pictures are of various sizes, colors, and types of
trim, but almost all the pictured pole buildings have garage or barn doors in addition to typical
residential entry doors.

Ms. Channels testified that l\/lr. Deshields showed her an advertisement for Deshields
Construction, but she denied ever seeing Defendant’s Exhibit l. Nevertheless, Ms, Channels
testified that the advertisement l\/lr. Deshields did show her pictured a garage ln relation to the
advertisement, Ms. Channels testified that she informed l\/lr. Deshields she did not want a garage
and that l\/lr. Deshields affirmed he could build her a salon.

The parties did not sign a contract during this first in-person meeting

T/ie Corzrract

ln November 2013, l\/ls. Channels contacted l\/lr. Deshields again to move forward with the
project, and on November 14, 20l3, l\/lr. Deshields again came to l\/ls. Channels’ home Mr.
Deshields brought with him the form contract used by him for all of his business

The form contract is a single page and states prominently in bold “CONTRACT TO
PERFORM LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR COMPLETION OF POLE
BUILDING.” The form contract contains spaces to fill out the size of the pole building and the

payment schedule for the project Underneath a specifications heading, the form contract sets forth

L)J

specifications for the pole building iii a series of boxes. Some of the specifications have options
(e.g. a 4-inch or 6-inch concrete pad), and some of the specifications are set (e.g. the pole building
will have 29-gauge metal walls).

l\/lr. Deshields went over the form contract with l\/ls. Channels, and l\/lr. Deshields and l\/ls.
Channels filled out the form, handwrote certain terms, and signed it (the “Contract”).2 l\/ls.
Channels filled in her name, address, and phone number and wrote the term “buying own door for
back” on the Contract. l\/lr. Deshields filled out the remainder of the form and wrote the other
handwritten terms in the Contract

The unambiguous terms of the Contract provide that: l\/lr. Deshields will build l\/ls.
Channels a 30x40 foot pole building (the “Pole Building”); and l\/ls. Channels will pay l\/lr.
Deshields SlS,lOO, consisting of a $5,000 deposit, $9,000 after the trusses are set, and a $4,100
balance due on completion As previously explained, the specifications for the Pole Building are
set forth in a series of boxes. These boxes contain minimal text, rather than full senteiices, and
Mr. Deshields testified without objection as to the precise meaning of these condensed terms.

Similar to the technical specifications for the Pole Building, the handwritten terms are not
written out in full sentences, and except for the handwritten term “insulat [sic] WALLS,” there is
no particularized dispute regarding the meaning of the handwritten terms For example, there is
no dispute that the partially illegible handwritten term located on the right just above the
specifications boxes~_which might read “bReezeway incl.”-provides that l\/lr. Deshields’ duties
under the Contract include construction of a breezeway connecting the Pole Building to l\/ls.

Channels’ house (the “Breezeway”).

 

2 Joint Exhibit l.

As to the “insulat[sic] WALLS” handwritten term, Mr. Deshields testified that he wrote
that on the Contract some time during construction According to l\/lr. Deshields, Ms. Channels
informed him during construction that she expected insulation in the walls of the Pole Building.
One of the Contract’s specifications boxes states “INSULATION YES OR NO.” The “YES” is
circled and handwritten next to the box is “R.” l\/lr. Deshields testified that'he informed l\/ls.
Channels that, while there would be insulation in the roof, under his understanding of the terms of
the Contract there would not be any insulation in the walls of the Pole Building. Notwithstanding
his understanding of the Contract requirements, Mr. Deshields agreed to install insulation in the
walls and wrote “insulat[sic] WALLS” on the Contract to reflect his agreement l\/lr. Deshields
testified that this agreement did not include the installation of drywall in the Pole Building.

l\/ls. Channels testified that l\/lr. Deshields wrote “insulat[sic] WALLS” on the Contract at
the time it was signed but did not testify regarding the particular meaning of that term, other than
to testify that it was her expectation that the Pole Building would have insulation and an interior
wall surface, such as drywall. l\/Is. Channels did not testify that l\/lr. Deshields specifically
represented that the walls would have an interior surface or finish.

Consrri¢ctz'orz Begz'ns

Although the Contract provides for a December 6, 20l3 start date, l\/lr. Deshields delayed
the start of construction_with l\/ls. Channels’ consent-»until the beginning of April 20l4 due to
inclement weather. lnitially, l\/ls. Channels felt that the construction was proceeding pretty well.
l\/lr. Deshields came to property with four to five workers and work proceeded l\/ls. Channels
became concerned regarding the construction after the Sussex County inspector, William Godwin,

Jr., came out to the property.

At the end of April or the beginning of May 20l4, l\/lr. Godwin, an employee of the Sussex
County Assessment Department, came to l\/ls. Channels’ house to perform a “final” inspection on
the Pole Building. lmmediately upon arrival, Mr. Godwin noticed a problem. The permit
application submitted by l\/lr. Deshields to Sussex County listed the proposed use of the building
as a “detached garage.” Because the Pole Building does not have a garage door and, therefore, did
not appear to be a garage, Mr. Godwin asked both l\/ls. Channels and l\/lr. Deshields what the actual
intended use for the building was. l\/is. Channels informed l\/lr. Godwin that she intended to use
the Pole Building as a salon, and l\/lr. Godwin instructed l\/ls. Channels that a salon permit would
require a detailed scale drawing of the proposed salon building, including the placement of hair
dryers, sinks, cutting chairs, etc.

ln response to his directions, l\/lr. Godwin testified that l\/lr. Deshields expressed his
willingness to do whatever was necessary to complete the project, and a few weeks later, l\/ls.
Channels submitted prints to Sussex County detailing the intended layout of the salon.3 Prior to
her conversation with l\/lr. Godwin, l\/ls. Channels was not aware that the permit l\/lr. Deshields
submitted to the County listed a detached garage as the intended purpose of the Pole Building,

Based on the lack of proper permit, l\/lr. Godwin testified that the Pole Building and
Breezeway “failed” inspection l\/lr. Godwiii did not testify as to the presence or absence of any
other factors that might have resulted in the Pole Building or Breezeway either passing or failing
inspection had the structures been properly permitted However, l\/lr. Deshields testified that then
Breezeway also failed inspection because it did not have the proper type of drywall in the

Breezeway and because there needed to be tape around the windows

 

3 Plaintiff` s Exhibit 3.

Consistent with l\/lr. Godwin’s testimony, l\/lr. Deshields testified that after the Pole
Building failed inspection he was ready and able to fix the issues identified by l\/lr. Godwin and
complete the project l\/ls. Channels testified that l\/lr. Deshields was angry that the Pole Building
failed inspection and stormed away from the conversation with l\/lr. Godwin. Further, l\/ls.
Channels testified that, when she asked l\/lr. Deshields why he submitted a permit for a garage, l\/lr.
Deshields stated that he did not know why and that, if she wanted a salon, l\/ls. Channels would
have to submit the permit herself Mr. Deshields testified that he submitted the original permit as
a detached garage permit because l\/fs. Channels already had a permit for a breezeway, and in l\/lr.
Deshields opinion, considered together those two permits would cover the Pole Building and the
Breezeway.

Consl‘rz/cz‘ion Followz'ng Mr. Godwin ’S ]nspectz'()n

According to l\/ls. Channels, Mr. Deshields never personally returned to the property
following l\/lr. Godwin’s inspection Nevertheless, l\/ls. Channels admitted that l\/ir. Deshields
continued to send workers to the site and significant work was completed following l\/lr. Godwin’s
visit, including pouring the concrete pad and installation of the roof for the Pole Building.

l\/ls. Channels testified that she asked the workers where l\/lr. Deshields was and attempted
to call l\/lr. Deshields, leaving messages regarding her concerns l\/ls. Channels and l\/lr. Deshields
did not speak personally, and l\/ls. Channels testified that l\/lr. Deshields did not speak with her
regarding l\/lr. Godwin’s instructions on receiving a permit for a salon

l\/fr. Deshields testified that he came back to the property almost every day (six or seven
times total) in response to l\/ls. Channels’ messages l\/lr. Deshields would check on the work but

did not stay to perform work personally

l\/ls. Channels testified that at some point in l\/lay 20l4 neither l\/lr. Deshields nor his
workers returned to the work site. l\/lr. Deshields testified that he did not return to the work site in
May 20l4 because he received a letter from l\/ls Channels’ lawyer

At the time construction stopped, l\/ls. Channels had paid l\/lr. Deshields $l4,000: a $5,000
deposit and $9,000 after the trusses were set. l\/ls. Channels has not paid l\/lr. Deshields the final
$4,l00 payment, which is due on completion l\/lr. Deshields testified that the following work
remained unfinished at the time that construction stopped: (l) installation of insulation in the walls
of the Pole Building; and (2) installation of “firewall” type drywall in the Breezeway.

Mr. Deshields testified that the insulation could not be installed at the time work stopped
because_if l\/Is. Channels intended to have electricity in the Pole Building_l\/ls. Channels would
need to engage an electrician to install electrical wiring first so that the wiring could be inspected
before insulation is installed over the wiring l\/lr. Godwiii also testified that an electrical inspection
could not occur if there was insulation covering the wiring

After construction stopped, l\/ls. Channels contacted several contractors to complete the
project, but l\/ls. Channels lacked the wherewithal to afford repair of the Pole Building or
completion of a salon Sussex County has not issued a certificate of occupancy for the Pole
Building, and it is currently only used for storage

Condz`tz`orz offhe Pole Buildz`ng at the Stop OfColtSrrtzctz'On

With regard to the written specifications for the Pole Building-i.e. the size and/or spacing
of the posts, carriers, skirtboard, purlins, side girts, trusses, footers, overhangs, metal walls, and
the concrete pad»»l\/lr. Deshields testified item by item and affirmed that the Pole Building
conforms to these specifications and there is no allegation or evidence to show that the Pole

Building does not conform to the written specifications l\/ls. Channels’ breach of contract claim

is based on allegedly unworkmaiilike construction and extrinsic evidence of additional contractual
duties

In support of her breach of contract claim, Ms. Channels testified as to her observations of
the condition of the Pole Building and Breezeway and introduced the testimony of her expert
witness, Vincent Tallarico. l\/lr. Tallarico works all over Sussex County doing residential
construction work through his business, Special Effects, LLC. l\/is Channels contacted l\/lr.
Tallarico in 2014 to get an opinion on the work performed by l\/lr. Deshields and to get an estimate
for interior finishing4

With regard to the allegedly unworkmanlike construction of the Pole Building and
Breezeway, l\/lr. Tallarico testified to a number of issues with the Pole Building and Breezeway
not being properly finished and fastened so as to prevent water intrusion l\/lr. Tallarico’s opinion
regarding the inadequacy of l\/lr. Deshields’ construction to prevent water intrusion is consistent
with l\/ls. Channels’ observations of water in the Pole Building and Breezeway after rain and with
photographs taken by l\/ls. Channels that were submitted into evidence l\/ls. Channels’
photographs show water inside the Pole Building and Breezeway.5 On this point, although l\/Ir.
Deshields testified that he built the Pole Building and Breezeway correctly and adequately, l\/lr.
Deshields admitted that water should not be able to come into a properly built pole building

With regard to the exterior metal of the Pole Building’s walls, l\/lr. Tallarico testified that,
where there are lines of screws fastening the exterior metal to the wood frame, there are some
screws missing, mostly in the front of the Pole Building, resulting in the exterior metal not being

properly fastened to the frame l\/lr. Tallarico testified that the minimum standard for construction

 

4 Plaintiff’ s Exhibit 2.
5 Plaintiff’s Exhibit lA-J.

requires the fastenings to be closed and tight, which would include consistent and even spacing

between screws

With regard to where the existing house connects to the Breezeway, l\/lr. Tallarico testified
that the house’s existing siding was removed in some place but not in others, leaving gaps through
which sunlight could be seen where the two structures connect According to l\/lr. Tallarico, to
prevent water intrusion at this connection, the siding should have been removed completely before
the two structures were joined together with watertight flashing or flashing paper. Although the
structures’ connection did have flashing installed, l\/lr. Tallarico testified that the flashing was not
installed so as to properly deflect water away, allowing water to come down between the flashing

and the house and into the Bi'eezeway.

With regard to where the Breezeway connects to the Pole Building, l\/lr. Tallarico testified
that the connection between the Breezeway and the Pole Building is also not watertight and that

and that daylight can be seen through where the structures connect

Mr. Tallarico estimated that the cost to correct the flashing and siding issues where the

Breezeway connects to the existing house and to the Pole Building would be $2,425.

As to other issues with the construction of the Pole Building and the Breezeway, l\/lr.
Tallarico testified that there were openings around the tops and the bottoms of the metal walls of
the Pole Building and at the peak of the Pole Building. Despite identifying the openings around
the tops of the metal walls and at the peak of the Pole Building as construction issues, l\/lr. Tallarico
did not offer an opinion on how to repair either of those openings or the cost. While l\/lr. Tallarico

testified that, at a minimum, there should be a line of silicone along the openings at the bottoms of

the metal walls, l\/lr. Tallarico did not offer an opinion on the cost of such a correction

10

On the subject of the walls of the Pole Building, l\/ls Channels and l\/lr. Tallarico both
testified that the walls of the Pole Building currently consist only of the exterior metal and the
wood frame The Pole Building walls do not have any insulation or drywall. l\/lr. Tallarico testified
that the cost to install lumber to accommodate drywall in the Pole Building would be 88,000~
$9,000 and the cost to install wall and ceiling insulation would be $2,500. l\/lr. Tallarico did not

give an opinion regarding the cost to install drywall.

Finally, on the subject of the windows, l\/ls. Channels testified that the windows installed
by l\/lr. Deshields were not watertight and water leaked through the windows One of the pictures
taken by l\/ls, Channels clearly shows water pooling on the wood frame immediately below one of
the Pole Building’s windows l\/lr. Deshields testified that l\/lr~. Godwin directed him to place tape
around the windows, but it is not clear from his testimony whether he or his workers taped the

windows l\/lr. Tallarico did not offer an opinion regarding the cost to weatherproof the windows

DISCUSSION
To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must prove three elements by a
preponderance of the evidence:
(l) the existence of a contract;
(2) breach of an obligation imposed by the contract; and
(3) damages6
Defendant admits that the Contract is a contract The parties’ dispute concerns Mr. Deshields’

obligations under the Contract and damages

 

6 VL]W Tech., LLC v, Hewlett-Packam’ Co,, 840 A.2d 606, 612 (Del. 2003) (citing Wz'rzston v.
Mandor, 710 A.2d 835, 840 (Del. Ch. 1997)).

ll

Breach OfOI)Zz`gatz`on lmposea.’ by the Contract

There are three basic parts of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim: (1) whether l\/lr.
Deshields breached the Contract by constructing the Pole Building and Breezeway in an
unworkmanlike manner; (2) whether l\/lr. Deshields breached the Contract by failing to install
insulation and drywall in the Pole Building; and (3) more broadly, whether l\/lr, Deshields breached
the Contract by failing to construct a building suitable for immediate use as a salon.

The law presumes that a person who holds themselves out as a contractor competent to
perform certain work “possesses the requisite skill to perform such labor in a proper manner, and
implies as a part of his contract that the work shall be done in a skillful and workmanlike manner.”7
To determine whether l\/lr. Deshields constructed the Pole Building and Breezeway in a
workmanlike manner, the Court must determine whether l\/lr. Deshields “displayed the degree of
skill or knowledge normally possessed by members of their profession or trade in good standing
in similar communities” in constructing the Pole Building and Breezeway.8

As to the allegation of unworkmanlike construction, l\/lr. Tallarico testified that the Pole
Building and Breezeway should, at a minimum, be watertight, and l\/lr. Deshields admitted as
much. l\/ls, Channels’ testimony and the photographic documentation establish that water intrudes
into both the Pole Building and the Breezeway. The Court finds that l\/lr. Deshields breached the
Contract by failing to construct the Pole Building and Breezeway in a workmanlike manner in that

the Pole Building and the Breezeway are not watertight l\/lr. Tallarico testified that the cost to

repair this issue is $2,425.

 

7 Gibbons v. Whalerz, 2009 WL 3014325, at *2 (Del. Com. Pl. Sept. 21, 2009) (quoting Bye v.

George W. MCCaulley & Son CO., 76 A. 621, 622 (Del. Super. 1908)), a]j"d, 2010 WL 8250809
(Del. Super, Mar. 22, 2010).

8 ]a’. (quoting Shz`pmarz v. Hudson, 1993 WL 54469, at *3 (Del. Super. Feb.5, 1993)).
12

As to the allegation that l\/lr. Deshields failed to install insulation and drywall in the Pole
Building, this allegation is intertwined with the broader claim that l\/lr. Deshields represented that
the Pole Building would be suitable for immediate use as a salon in that both arguments rely on
extrinsic evidence

Delaware adheres to the objective theory of contracts, “i.e., a contract’s construction should
be that which would be understood by an objective, reasonable third paity.”9 “Contract terms
themselves will be controlling when they establish the parties’ common meaning so that a
reasonable person in the position of either party would have no expectations inconsistent with the
contract language.”10 However, “[w]hen a contract’s plain meaning, in the context of the overall
structure of the contract, is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation7 courts may
consider extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity.”ll The Contract does not expressly state that
the Pole Building will have an interior wall surface, but the handwritten term “insulat[sic]
WALLS” is ambiguous

l\/lr. Deshields testified that he wrote the handwritten term “insulat[sic] WALLS” to reflect
his agreement to install insulation in the walls of the Pole Building l\/lr. Deshields also testified
that ceiling insulation is “automatic.” The emphasis on walls in the “insulat[sic] WALLS” term
is consistent with interpreting “insulat[sic] WALLS” as an agreement to install insulation in the
walls, rather than an agreement to install insulation and interior wall surfaces The Court does not

find Ms Channels’ testimony regarding her subjective expectation that the Pole Building would

 

9 Salamone v. Gormczn, 106 A,3d 354, 367~68 (Del. 2014) (citing Osborn ex rel. Osborn v. Kemp,
991 A.2d 1153, 1159 (Del. 2010)).

10 ]a’. at 368 (quoting Eagle ]ndus., 702 A.2d at 1232).

ll Ia’. at 374 (citing ]n re ]BP, ]nc. S’holders Lz`z‘ig., 789 A.2d 14, 55 (Del. Ch. 2001)).

13

have an interior wall surface persuasive because l\/ls. Channels did not testify as to specific
representations or discussions between the parties regarding interior wall surfaces

Similarly, on the subject of Plaintiffs broader argument-that the Pole Building would be
suitable for immediate use as a salon_the Court does not find Ms. Channels’ testimony that l\/lr.
Deshields agreed to build her a salon, as opposed to a building that could be used as a salon at
some point, credible

First and foremost, the Contract does not state any intended purpose for the Pole Building

Second, l\/ls. Channels’ belief that Mr, Deshields agreed to build her a salon cannot square
with the plainly limited scope of the Contract While the Contract does provide for the construction
of a pole building, conspicuously missing from the Contract are any terms addressing certain work
necessary to render the Pole Building suitable for immediate use as a salon For example, the
Contract does not provide for the installation of: electrical wiring; plumbing; heating, ventilation,
or air conditioning systems; drywall; flooring; or fixtures, such as lights, sinks, or cabinets On
the aesthetic side, the Contract does not provide for any sort of finishing, such as painting or
wallpapering. ln fact, despite admitting that plumbing and electric are necessary for a salon and
admitting that l\/lr. Deshields never agreed to install plumbing or electric, l\/is Channels denied
that she had any additional duties to perform in order to turn the Pole Building into a salon

Third, while l\/ls. Channels testified that l\/lr. Deshields affirmed he could build her a salon,
l\/ls. Channels did not testify that l\/lr. Deshields made any specific representations about the Pole
Building or Breezeway that are inconsistent with the Contract’s terms For example, two of the
Contracts specifications boxes concern the walls of the Pole Building. The first states “POST 4’
X 6’ SPACED 8’ O/C our 6 X 6 POST;” the second, “29 GUAGE [sic] METAL 40 YR

WARRANTY.” l\/lr. Deshields testified that these terms refer to the walls of the Pole Building.

14

The first concerns the size and spacing of the wood frame, and the second concerns the thickness
and quality of the exterior metal l\/lr. Deshields testified that he went over these terms with l\/ls.
Channels prior to signing the Contract, and l\/ls. Channels did not rebut l\/lr. Deshields testimony
on the meaning of those terms

Considering the Contract’s express terms and the representations made by l\/lr. Deshields
regarding the specific features of the Pole Building, a reasonable third party would understand that
the Pole Building would resemble an unfinished garage, much like the one’s pictured in l\/lr.
Deshields’ advertisement,12 albeit one without a garage door. On this point, the fact that l\/ls.
Channels sought out a contractor specifically for a pole building, first by contacting Delmarva Pole
Buildings and then by contacting Mr. Deshields, and the fact that l\/ls. Channels was aware that
l\/lr. Deshields’ pole buildings are garage-type buildings, even if potentially convertible into a
salon, weighs against the reasonableness of her subjective belief that the Pole Building would be
suitable for use as a salon immediately, or soon after, the completion of construction

ln light of the foregoing the Court credits l\/lr. Deshields interpretation of the “insulat[sic]
WALLS” term and finds that l\/lr. Deshields breached the Contract by failing to install insulation
in the Pole Building, but the Court does not find that the Contract obligated l\/lr. Deshields to install
drywall in the Pole Building. l\/lr. Tallarico testified that the cost to install insulation is $2,500.

On the broader issue of whether l\/ir. Deshields breached the Contract by failing to build
l\/ls. Channels a building suitable for immediate use as a salon, the Court does not find that the
Contract obligated l\/lr. Deshields to build the Pole Building such that it wouid suitable for

immediate use as a salon. Such work would go far beyond the express contractual obligations

 

12 Defendant’s Exhibit 1.

15

and the Court does not find that a reasonable third party could read such an obligation into the
ambiguous terms of the Contract
Damages

Breach of contract damages are based upon the reasonable expectations of the parties13
“This principle of expectation damages is measured by the amount of money that would put the
promisee in the same position as if the promisor had performed the contract.”14

The Court finds that Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it would
cost $2,425 to fix the unworkmanlike construction of the flashing and siding and $2,500 to install
insulation lt is undisputed that Plaintiff did not pay 84,100 of the contract price

CONCLUSION

As to Plaintiff` s claim for breach of contract, the Court finds that Defendant is liable to the
Plaintiff in the amount of 8825. Therefore, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for
8825 against Defendant, with costs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/,
/ // /

 

13 Dunccm v Thelafx fmc 775 A. 2d 1019, 1022 (Del. 2001).
14 ]a’ (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 347 cmt a).

16

