Self-Help Under Common Law: Case Study
Case: “Erin Kelly hired Century Builders to build her a new house for $250,000. After the house was 80 percent complete and $200,000 had been paid, Century left the job site to work on another house. What remained to be done was the installation of the fixtures and appliances in the bathrooms and the kitchen, the installation of the heating and air conditioning unit, the completion of the stone fireplace in the living room, and the installation of the sidewalks, driveway, and irrigation system. When Century asks for the final payment, should Erin refuse, claiming a common law right of self-help?,” (Frey, M., p. 69).
Self-help is an active form of unilateral action; often occurring when a contract has been breached; it confers the aggrieved to pursue relief as the plaintiff, without the assistance of the courts, (Frey, M., p. 9). Self-help under common law is an individual legal action, as the other party involuntarily becomes the defendant to the aggrieved. In the case of Erin Kelly and Century Builders, the contact between client Erin Kelly was breached; Kelly is therefore entitled to refuse payment for the remainder of services unrendered. To support this legally based process created by statute, previous rulings can be used where trials have already produced correlative rulings; unlike other forms of unilateral action, self-help must be based on the law, (Martin, F., p. 63). Self-help is governed under common law, not contract; the nonbreaching party cannot act against the breach of contract, (Frey, M., p. 65).
Martin Frey, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tulsa, defines self-help as “a dispute resolution process, an aggrieved party may pursue relief without the assistance of the courts;” concisely denoted as “taking care of oneself without judicial assistance,” (Frey, M., pp. 63, 435). The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines common law as “[r]ules of law developed by the courts as opposed to those created by statute; [a] general system of law deriving exclusively from court decisions,” (McLean, I., p.739). What makes self-help under common law such a powerful action is that it circumvents court costs, while utilizing the authority of previously determined Supreme Court cases to arrive at a settlement. In this case, Century Builders made the conscious decision to detract from the construction’s momentum, withdrawing themselves from their contracted obligations.
Erin Kelly originally contracted Century Builders for $250,000 to build a new house; a house is visually depicted by Century Builders as a completed and livable construct. Moreover, buildings must adhere to construction codes; in New York City “[t]he NYC Construction Codes consist of the General Administrative Provisions, Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Fuel Gas Code, and Energy Conservation Code,” (NYC). In the case of Erin Kelly, Century Builders failed to uphold their only contracted duty of building a house, departing after only completing 80% of their work, and before the construction could pass inspection; Century’s breach of contract voided any duties committed by the aggrieved party, in this case, Erin Kelly. Century’s vacation of the premises before completing their obligation to construct a house included abandoning: the installation of fixtures and appliances in the bathrooms and the kitchen; the installation of the heating and air conditioning unit; the stone fireplace in the living room; sidewalks, a driveway, or a system of irrigation; these inactions reveal the evident forfeiture of the mutually contracted agreement. Century’s physical desertion of the project, alongside their complete absence from any representation of the property, indicated the project had been completed. Construction builders are not authorized to return to the location of a completed project, after its completion; returning to a house after leaving the premises can be considered trespassing, a violation recognized by property law. Requesting payment for the services contractually agreed upon indicates Century Builder has completed job; nowhere in the contract does it state a designated timeframe that Kelly will pay Century, therefore both fall into a timeframe of reasonable expectation; in esse upon the project’s completion.
In the case of Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, a building permit for an addition to a funeral home was issued in 1996, yet its work was not completed until 1997; The Contract Builders brought action against the Funeral Home, resulting in a counterclaim. The Supreme Court of New York cited cases, Young v. Whitney; Lake Steel Erection, Inc. v. Egan; and Savasta v. 470 Newport Assocs.; whereby the Court imparted previously stated ruling as an objective basis used in Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home’s adjudicated decree.
The Court’s ruling of Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home wrote that, “[w]here a contract fails to state a date for the completion of a construction project, a reasonable time is implied,” moreover, the designation for what is considered a reasonable time was cited as dependent on facts and circumstances, plainly declared in the judge’s ruling of that case, setting precedence for future instances (Frey, M., p. 68). The apparent contrast between these cases lies in the trial evidence; Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home revealed the delayed completion from the previously expected timeline was due to the funeral home continuing to hold services during active construction. Erin Kelly’s grievance against Century Builders stands distinctly converse, as Century Builder’s delayed completion from the previously expected timeline was due to another new client; Century Builders neglected their duty to fulfill their commitments, duties, and obligations; specifically contracted ones.
In the case of Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, the Supreme Court’s ruling ordered the previous judgment in favor of the defendant to be reversed; stating that “the trial court improperly awarded the defendant judgment on its first counterclaim seeking damages for lost profits,” (Scholar). The Court allowed Teramo to recover lost damages of $20,000; yet declared that “the principal sum of the plaintiff's recovery should be reduced by $6,180,” declaring that the plaintiff is entitled “to recover on its first cause of action…of $17,950;” awarding the Teramo & Co, Inc. a “sum of $11,770,” (Frey, M., p. 68).
Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home’s New York Supreme Court’s variables are vastly different than Erin Kelly’s pursuit of self-help, thereby taking unilateral action against Century Builders. Erin Kelly’s choice not to designate a timeframe within the contract correlates with Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, yet, Kelly did not impose any physical conditions preventing the contractors from completing the project. This distinction is essential, and concludes that while some precedence exists, Erin Kelly’s case must be judged independently from Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home. In both cases, the omission of a specified date of completion resolves to the Court’s ruling in Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home’s; that when it comes to contracts, an unenumerated duration work must occur within a reasonable time. In both cases, the contractor brought suit against their own client, leading to a counterclaim. Erin Kelly’s case has precedence to assert unilateral action, namely self-help under common law to address the disruption of her contracted agreement. Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home’s ruling acts as a consolidation of the various references within its own context, forming a focused objective position to be used in the courts, as the Court cited evident unprofessional construction quality, and a lack of reasonably accommodated timeframe.
Century Builder’s complete vacation of the premises, due to a new job, and before the contracted completion occurred, equates to an unreasonable time. Erin Kelly, the aggrieved party, therefore, is not obligated to pay any of the remaining balance agreed by contract, until the work is fully completed. It is highly unreasonable that Kelly even considers continuing payments for unreceived services. Nowhere in the contract did Kelly indicate she would pay before the project was completed; moreover, Kelly is granted the same expectation to pay for services rendered within a reasonable time. Century Builder’s neglect to complete the project while under the same durational obligations displays their own discernment of what is considered a reasonable time. Kelly, therefore is not required to pay anything further until the project is completed in full, as both parties believe reasonable time has not occurred. Century Builders cannot claim they completed the work 100%, as fundamental components required to sustain human life were omitted from its construct. Century Builders appointed themselves as involuntary defendants upon breach of their own contractual obligations.
Century Builder’s actions correlate with those of Teramo & Co, Inc., whereby both projects were not constrained to an enumerated timeframe. Century Builders can argue that they had not completed the project, due to there being no contractual timeframe; Kelly still retains the right to take unilateral action against Century Builders, as the departure from a job and the beginning of another one certainly qualifies as completion. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a house as “[a] home, dwelling, or residence,” while the academically acclaimed Merriam-Webster dictionary correlates in its distinction, denoting a house as “a building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families.” In the context of both definitions, Century Builders neglected their duty to build a completed house. Century’s abandonment of their obligations before the installation of fixtures and appliances in the bathrooms and the kitchen; the installation of the heating and air conditioning unit; the stone fireplace in the living room; sidewalks, a driveway, or a system of irrigation; reveals their company’s forfeiture of their own contract. Century did not strive to complete the project in a timely manner, iterated prior and cited as distinct criteria in previous rulings.
Erin Kelly can assert her rights, and dispute this corporate negligence, claiming a common law right of self-help and taking unilateral action against Century Builders. Self-help under common law often originates from broken contracts; although self-help through common law adheres to less specificity than initiating self-help under statute, (Frey, M., p. 65).
Beyond the immediate lack of residency, there can be no loss incurred to Kelly, should she actively assert her rights, at the expense of the other party, (Frey, M., p. 75). Kelly’s assertion will likely encourage Century Builders to uphold their contractual obligation, enabling the reignition of their initial passion that began the original construction, before they were hired mid-job by another party.
The Biblical worldview supports taking unilateral action through self-help; His Holy Spirit writes that “[y]ou were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness,” (Ephesians 4:22-24; NIV). This scripture places the agreed-upon contract in the position of the “old-self,” and the unilateral action of self-help as the new self. When one contracted party breaches a covenantal agreement, the other party gains the right to pursue relief by unilateral action; first, the aggrieved party must reflect if their position is worth fighting for; this includes legal research using case studies. Secondly, Scripture opposes breaking contracts, as contracts originated through God’s divine covenant. Jesus declared in the New Testament that a covenant is the foundation of objective morality; reminding us “[t]his cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me,” (1Co 11:25b; CSB). The reason we are given a sacred covenant with God is so that we may utilize His honesty as an objective reference for our own moral principles. Without the Light of the Lord, it becomes difficult to discern duties and moral obligations. The Christian doctrine reduces the need for alternative dispute resolution, and self-help as both parties are simultaneously in contract with both man and the Lord. Self-help requires the aggrieved party to ensure that their decision to pursue relief is reasonable, and like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Conclusion
Erin Kelly has the right to implement self-help against Century Builders; whether she chooses to assert this right is her own choice. Kelly’s refusal to pay the obligatory extra $50,000, was contractually contingent on the completion of Century Builder’s services rendered. Century Builders cannot claim that their 80% completed structure is a livable house; the company can debate the meaning of the implied reasonable time, per the ruling of Teramo & Co, Inc. v. O’Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home. Erin Kelly should not be required to pay for a house that is ultimately an unsafe dwelling, and unable to pass basic code. Century Builder’s vacation of the premises indicates they have completed their task; as once the housing project has been constructed re-entry to the premises would be considered trespassing. Kelly can bring unilateral action to achieve completion of her residency, or to avoid paying the $50,000 she will need to hire new contractors. The people need not wait for the courts as all possess the inherent right to self-help; although beyond the contract, the assertion of self-help is contingent on common law, its benefits outweigh the risks when it comes to nonbreaching parties under contractual agreement. The inherent right to self-help is an American duty protected under U.S. law and cannot be revoked from evidently aggrieved parties seeking regress. In the case of Century Builder’s contractual breach, Erin Kelly’s grievance is valid, therefore unilateral action can be taken to judiciously resolve restitution.
Bibliography
Frey, Martin A. (2003). Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution. Cengage Textbook. Kindle Edition.
Garner, B.A. (2021). Black's Law Dictionary, Eleventh Edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson Reuters.
Law. (1981). Webster's Red Seal Publ'n, Inc. v. Gilberton World-Wide Publ'n, Inc. New York Court of Appeals Decisions. Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1981/53-n-y-2d-643-0.html
Law. (1993). Savasta v. 470 Newport Assocs. New York Court of Appeals Decisions. New York Case Law. New York Law. US Law. Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-
appeals/1993/82-n-y-2d-763-0.html
McLean, I. (1996). The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford Univerity Press: Chathem, Kent; Great Britain
NYC. (Accessed on November 2nd, 2023). NYC Codes – Buildings. https://www.nyc.gov/site/buildings/codes/nyc-code.page.
Scholar. (Accessed on November 1st, 2023). Teramo & Co., Inc. v. O'Brien-Sheipe Funeral Home, Inc., 283 AD 2d 635 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2001 - Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9266370920923928289&q=Teramo+%26+Co.,+Inc.+v.+O%27Brien-Sheipe+Funeral+Home&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33