Gosnick v. Wolff

Citations: 115 N.W.2d 396; 366 Mich. 573; 1962 Mich. LEXIS 535Docket: Docket 22, Calendar 49,229

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; May 18, 1962; Michigan; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In Gosnick v. Wolff, the Supreme Court of Michigan addressed a dispute arising from a construction contract. Plaintiffs, general contractors, sought to recover $3,000 from defendant, a subcontractor, for expenses incurred in correcting defective work. The subcontract required the defendant to apply two coats of Cementhide paint to the exterior concrete blocks of a building, adhering to the architect's specifications. Prior to beginning work, the defendant observed that the exterior walls had previously received one coat of Cementhide, which was deteriorating, and noted the absence of grout on the wall's surface. 

The defendant requested permission to substitute Luminall paint for Cementhide, which was granted under the condition that he would assume the risk. He proceeded with the substitution and completed the work, receiving full payment approved by the architect. However, within one year, plaintiffs reported water infiltration issues, traced back to the ungrouted exterior walls. The defendant admitted he did not grout the walls, claiming no such requirement was specified in the contract documents.

Plaintiffs then had another contractor perform the necessary grouting and repainting, leading to the suit to recover the costs under the contract's guarantee. The defendant argued that the contract was clear and unambiguous, asserting that it only required the application of Cementhide paint without additional waterproofing obligations. In contrast, plaintiffs contended that the specifications mandated adherence to manufacturer's guidelines when not explicitly stated otherwise. The court ultimately considered these differing interpretations of the contractual obligations.

The architect's master specifications serve as a guide for the architect and are not intended for use by the installing contractor. The defendant argued that the architect failed to adhere to the manufacturer's recommendations regarding Cementhide paint and that it was the architect’s responsibility to determine if grouting was necessary for the block wall. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming they had met the burden of proof and were entitled to judgment. 

Key findings included: 
1. The defendant did not adhere to the special conditions outlined in the architect's specifications referenced in the subcontract, particularly Article No. 9, which mandates adherence to manufacturer specifications. The contract required the application of two coats of Luminall paint, with the first coat needing a grouting material for moisture resistance.
2. The manufacturer's specifications indicated that for exterior aggregate block, a specific mixing procedure involving Marb-L-Cote (a grouting material) was required for the first coat. Evidence showed that the painting was done on exterior aggregate block without the necessary grouting material.
3. The architect inspected the work and concluded that the absence of grout likely caused leakage. The defendant acknowledged that no grouting material was used and admitted ignorance of the need to include it for compliance with the manufacturer's specifications until the trial. 
4. The defendant did not seek the manufacturer's specifications prior to application and only followed instructions on the paint can, which suggested obtaining a specification sheet.
5. The architect's specifications state that each contractor is responsible for the proper installation of their work in accordance with the plans and specifications. 

Overall, the court found that the defendant failed to fulfill its contractual obligations by not using the required grouting material.

The lower court determined that the plaintiffs did not waive their claims regarding the defendant's defective work. The evidence showed that the defendant was fully compensated along with other subcontractors while the cause of the leakage was still unidentified. The court's decision was based solely on the contract's provisions, which were self-contained and included references, thereby negating the applicability of the law cited by the defendant. The contractor's deviation from the established plans and specifications for the painting of aggregate block raised a factual question for the trial judge to resolve without a jury, concerning whether the contract's terms were fully defined and adhered to by the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's findings, as it could not conclude that the evidence clearly favored the defendant. The decision to uphold the judgment included the award of costs to the plaintiffs, with concurrence from several justices.