Case updates
Oct 26, 2024
Melia Moorhouse successfully argued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that a construction company be paid their final invoice and interest in the building of a custom residence.
In Solaris Custom Homes Inc. v. Trovao, the terms of an oral contract came under scrutiny as the homeowners refused to pay their construction company the final invoice issued to them in the construction of their custom home. Centrally in this proceeding, the homeowners claimed after the work was complete that the oral contract was subject to a budget, and the construction company exceeded that budget.
On October 7, 2024, Justice Greenwood ruled in favour of Solaris Custom Homes Inc., represented by Melia Moorhouse. The Supreme Court determined that although an oral cost-plus contract was in place, the homeowners had not established a clear budget or estimate when they entered into the cost-plus contract. In particular, Justice Greenwood was not satisfied that the discussions between the parties, the manner in which the project proceeded, or the parties conduct indicated that a specific budget or estimate was ever agreed to as a term of the contract. A thorough cross-examination of the homeowners underscored the fact that the homeowners preconceived notion of what it should have cost to build their home coloured their perception of the how the contract was actually formed.
Accordingly, the budget did not form part of the contract. In the end result Solaris was entitled to the entirety of their final invoice, plus interest. These reasons highlight the importance of clearly and specifically outlining contract terms, as a foregone understanding can snowball into a lengthy and costly dispute.