O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope
Texas Court of Civil Appeals
529 S.W.2d 258 (1975)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. (Grun Roofing) (defendant) entered a contract with Cope (plaintiff) to install a new roof on Cope’s house. Under the contract, Grun Roofing agreed to install a roof for $648 using “russet glow” shingles. Grun Roofing described these shingles as being a “brown varied color.” After Grun Roofing installed the roof, Cope noticed that some of the shingles contained yellow streaks. Grun Roofing installed replacement shingles, but the replacement shingles did not match the color of the original shingles. As a result, Cope's roof was not uniform in color. Cope waited for nine or ten months to see if the shingles would begin looking more uniform in color, but this never occurred. The roof was otherwise substantial and provided Cope sufficient protection from the elements. However, the roof could only be made uniform in color by replacing the entire roof. Cope refused to pay Grun Roofing the $648 for the roof. Grun Roofing filed a mechanic’s lien on Cope’s home. Cope brought suit against Grun Roofing in Texas state court seeking $1,500 in damages based on Grun Roofing’s alleged failure to install a satisfactory roof according to the contract. Cope also sought to set aside the mechanic’s lien on the property. Grun Roofing filed a cross-claim for $648. The trial court awarded Cope $122.60 in damages, set aside the mechanic’s lien, and denied recovery to Grun Roofing on its cross-claim. Grun Roofing appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cadena, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
