Opinion ID: 2971901
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: NCI’s alleged breach of contract

Text: Crossley next argues that, even if the February 10 agreement is controlling, NCI breached its contractual obligations by (1) delaying the delivery of the roofing panels, (2) failing to supply the correct number and specifications of the panels, and (3) failing to supply the necessary shop room drawings. The district court’s opinion again provides an exhaustive analysis of the facts. With regard to the delayed delivery, the district court made the factual finding that the “[d]elivery of the panels was delayed because of the color selection.” Indeed, both parties agree that NCI was not informed that the Greystone Lodge owner wanted a specific color for the roofing panels until February 24, 1997, some two weeks after the effective date of the contract. The Lodge owner, moreover, did not approve of NCI’s suggested substitution until March 27, and NCI was not notified of his decision until April 1. Production of the roofing panels was therefore pushed back even further. The contract is silent about the color of the roofing panels, stating only that the job called for “Standing Seam NCI Standard Kynar Color Roof System” and that “NCI shall not be responsible for any requirement not shown herein.” Crossley, moreover, has no effective rebuttal to the district -7- Nos. 03-6512 & 03-6540 Crossley Constr. Corp. v. NCI Bldg. Sys. court’s conclusion that “neither side is solely at fault for the delays associated with the color selection and approval.” Because the contract was silent about the roofing panels’ color and because the evidence suggests that neither party was solely at fault, this delay cannot be the basis of a breach of contract. Crossley’s second claim is that NCI delivered unusable roofing panels built to the wrong specifications. But the evidence indicates that NCI fulfilled its contractual obligation by providing the panels that Crossley requested and by double-checking to make sure that the delivered panels conformed to the requested specifications. NCI draftsman Rick Shown testified that he “checked [and] rechecked the bill of materials against the panel takeoffs on the drawings and checked the packing tickets against the bill of materials. There was no omission[] of any panels whatsoever.” When asked if there was any reason why the panels delivered might have been the wrong size and shape, Shown responded, “None whatsoever.” By contrast, the district court found that Crossley failed to provide “any documentation which would provide specifics about the nonconforming goods,” including “any specific information as to when the deliveries were made, how they were short, which panels were the wrong length, etc.” The evidence, moreover, indicates that Crossley dallied in informing NCI of any alleged shortages or noncomformities in the roofing panels. NCI, for example, was not notified of any problems until June 19, 1997, when it received a letter from Crise tersely warning that “[Crossley] anticipate[s] a shortage of panels and trim on the above referenced project.” This letter was received after all of NIC’s deliveries had been completed. Stewart, as NCI’s representative, wrote back that he had visited the job site and had determined that panels from one building had been moved to -8- Nos. 03-6512 & 03-6540 Crossley Constr. Corp. v. NCI Bldg. Sys. another. He had also seen bundles of panels on the ground. Stewart later wrote to Crise advising him that “all panels were produced according to cut lists provided by or signed off on by representatives on your firm . . . . [W]e will have to investigate what happened to this material.” Crossley, on the other hand, can point to no evidence demonstrating that NCI failed to provide the necessary materials or that, if it did so fail, NCI was solely responsible. The district court committed no error in concluding that “Crossley has also not met its burden of showing that NCI breached the contract by supplying nonconforming goods and by failing to provide replacement goods.” The last area of dispute regarding NCI’s contractual obligations is with respect to various project drawings that NCI was obligated to provide to Crossley. Crossley claims that NCI never delivered the drawings, thus preventing it from using them as “documentation on the site to use in checking the shipment [from NCI] to see if it contained all the material necessary when delivered.” Rick Shown, however, testified that, to his knowledge, all of the drawings were delivered to Crossley and approved. And Steve Franklin, the subcontractor responsible of the roof erection, testified that he had not only seen the drawings, but had relied on them as he “built the building.” Crossley’s claim that the shop drawings were never received is therefore unpersuasive. We find no fault with the district court’s conclusion that “Crossley has not met its burden of showing that NCI breached the contract based on any failure by NCI concerning project drawings.”