From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Landis v. William Fannin Builders, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
951 N.E.2d 1078 (2011)
In 2004, Landis and Weidman (plaintiffs) hired Fannin Builders, Inc. (Fannin Builders) (defendant) to build them a custom home for $356,750.00. The contract required Fannin Builders to build the home according to the plaintiffs’ specifications. Because the plaintiffs desired a rustic look to their home, they required that Fannin Builders use T1-11 exterior siding with two coats of stain. The plaintiffs received assurances from Fannin Builders that it had experience with T1-11 siding. The plaintiffs selected a semi-transparent green color stain for the siding. Fannin Builders arranged for 84 Lumber to provide the siding. 84 Lumber in turn hired Precision Applied Coating Enterprises (PACE) to stain the siding in the color chosen by the plaintiffs. However, PACE initially underestimated how many sheets of siding were required, and thus had to stain an additional 19 sheets separately from the rest of the siding. Consequently, one batch of siding was a darker shade than the other. Fannin Builders’ field superintendent, Jeff Klinger, assured Weidman that the two shades would blend after a second coat of stain was applied. 84 Lumber proceeded to install the siding. However, the second coat of stain did not blend the colors as promised and the house had a striped appearance as a result. Despite multiple attempts, Fannin Builders was unable to remedy the difference in colors. Fannin Builders proposed applying a solid stain, which would have masked the different shades. However, the plaintiffs rejected this proposal because a solid stain would not lead to the rustic look for which the plaintiffs had contracted. The plaintiffs brought suit for breach of contract and were awarded $66,906.24 for the cost to preplace the mismatched siding. Fannin Builders appealed, arguing that the trial court should have awarded the amount representing the diminution in market value of the house, which was estimated at $8,500.00, as opposed to the cost to replace the mismatched siding.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Klatt, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.