New England Structures, Inc. v. Loranger
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
234 N.E.2d 888 (1968)
Facts
Theodore Loranger & Sons (Loranger) (plaintiff) subcontracted with New England Structures, Inc. (New England) to construct a roof deck on a school being built by Loranger, the project’s general contractor. In the parties’ written agreement, Loranger included several grounds on which it could terminate New England’s contract, including failure to hire enough skilled workers to complete the project without delay. New England received a telegram from Loranger on December 18, 1961 stating Loranger’s intention to terminate the contract as of December 26, 1961 because New England failed to hire adequate skilled workers resulting in delay. New England responded that Loranger’s conduct had caused the delay. Loranger hired another subcontractor to complete the roof deck and sued New England for the difference in the contract price. New England countersued for breach, claiming that Loranger breached by improperly terminating New England’s right to proceed with the contract. The trial court, which heard evidence regarding the poor quality of New England’s work, instructed the jury to consider the propriety of Loranger’s termination of the contract only on the ground stated in Loranger’s telegram, whether adequate skilled workers were hired. The jury found for New England in both actions and Loranger appealed the jury instruction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cutter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
