Opinion ID: 516947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Liability of Itel Under Contract Law

Text: 34 Itel argues that the district court misperceived the relationship between Chapman and Itel even if the court correctly found the contract not to be the usual turn-key construction contract. Itel claims that as the general contractor, Chapman was responsible for design deficiencies. See Emerald Forest Utility Dist. v. Simonsen Constr. Co., 679 S.W.2d 51, 52-53 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.). While the general rule might hold general contractors liable, it is inapplicable to the facts in this case. See United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 137, 39 S.Ct. 59, 61, 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918). See also Newell v. Mosley, 469 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The Supreme Court in Spearin states: 35 ... if the contractor is bound to build according to plans and specifications prepared by the owner, the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in the plans and specifications. This responsibility of the owner is not overcome by the usual clauses requiring builders to visit the site, to check the plans, and to inform themselves of the requirements of the work, as is shown by Christie v. United States, 237 U.S. 234, 35 Sup.Ct. 565, 59 L.Ed. 933; ... where it was held that the contractor should be relieved, if he was misled by erroneous statements in the specifications. 36 Id. (some citations omitted). Chapman carried out the construction according to the plans prepared by Itel and mutually approved. Chapman cannot be held responsible for defects in those plans. 8 37 Chapman did not breach the contract. Rather, Itel breached it by failing to pay rent, by failing to make repairs as it had contracted to do, and by vacating the premises. The district court correctly awarded damages to Chapman for Itel's breach of the contract. 38