Opinion ID: 1388197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ASSUMPTION OF RISK and WAIVER

Text: Finally, Federal argues that, even if Aetna had the right to prosecute Starr's contractual claim against Dixie, the trial court erred in awarding damages to the plaintiff because (A) Starr expressly assumed the risk of loss to all its work, labor, and materials involved in the project and (B) Starr waived any right to recover from Dixie. Federal refers to selective language in the subcontract and in the General Conditions to the general contract incorporated in the subcontract. We will assume, without deciding, that this language supports the interpretation Federal puts upon it. At the time the Cohen building was destroyed by fire, Dixie had paid Starr only $21,150 of the $227,224.38 due under the subcontract. Hence, Dixie was in breach of its contractual obligation to pay past due installments in the total sum of $203,984.38. [I]n suits for specific performance, the plaintiff to entitle himself to relief must show ... full compliance with the terms of the contract on his part.... Harman v. Moss, 117 Va. 676, 682, 86 S.E. 111, 113 (1915). The general rule is, that a court of equity will not specifically enforce a contract at the suit of a party who is himself in default in respect thereto, or has himself violated its terms and obligations. Grubb v. Moore, 108 Va. 72, 83, 60 S.E. 757, 761 (1908) (citations omitted). The rule in equity applies generally to actions at law for breach of contract. The party who commits the first breach of a contract is not entitled to enforce it.... Hurley v. Bennett, 163 Va. 241, 253, 176 S.E. 171, 175 (1934). While we have held that this rule does not apply when the breach did not `go to the root of the contract' but only to a minor part of the consideration, Neely v. White, 177 Va. 358, 366, 14 S.E.2d 337, 340 (1941) (failure to pay $1,000 of $15,000 consideration), we think the rule in Hurley should apply here where the breach was failure to pay $203,984.38 of the $227,224.38 contract consideration. We hold, therefore, that Dixie, and derivatively Federal, cannot enforce either the assumption-of-risk clause or the waiver clause in the Dixie-Starr contract. [3] Accordingly, Dixie is liable to Starr under the payment clause of the subcontract, and Federal is liable to Starr under the payment bond. Finding no merit in Federal's assignments of error, we will affirm the judgment entered below. Affirmed.