Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Disagreement over whether the contract allowed billing beyond the $10,000 estimate for services and materials.

• Dispute about whether the additional work, especially door replacements, was foreseeable or justified at contract signing.

• Examination of the justification for the hours and materials billed by Construction Option Design et G.B. Inc.

• Determination of the right to payment for subcontracted electrical work, including administration and profit fees.

• Consideration of whether both defendants were properly bound by the contract and subsequent claims.

• Decision that each party would bear their own legal costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties

Construction Option Design et G.B. Inc., acting as a general contractor, entered into a service contract with Catherine Bertheau and Christopher De Vito for the correction of deficiencies in a condominium unit occupied by Bertheau. The purpose was to facilitate a rapid and advantageous sale. The contract, signed on January 20, 2020, included a “coût budgétaire approximatif” of $10,000 (plus taxes) and specified that work would be billed on a time and materials basis, with subcontracted work and materials subject to “prix coûtant + 15 % profit + 10 % administration.”

Nature of the dispute

After completion, Construction Option Design et G.B. Inc. issued a total invoice of $22,340.88 (plus taxes), including $5,398.38 for electrical subcontracting and materials and $16,942.50 for carpentry work at $90 per hour for 188.25 hours. Bertheau and De Vito refused to pay, claiming the work was incomplete or unsatisfactory, did not meet their requests, and included charges for unrequested materials. They also argued the contract set a $10,000 (plus taxes) limit.

Key legal issues

The court considered whether the contract allowed billing based on the value of services and materials, whether the extra work and costs were foreseeable or justified, and whether Construction Option Design et G.B. Inc. was entitled to payment for all materials and subcontracted work. The court also reviewed whether the contractor properly justified increases above the estimated cost and whether the parties’ conduct supported any modifications to the agreement.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the contract did not authorize unlimited cost overruns and that the $10,000 estimate was binding unless Construction Option Design et G.B. Inc. could justify additional charges as unforeseeable or otherwise warranted. The court determined that the contractor did not demonstrate that the replacement of all doors and the additional hours billed were unforeseeable at the time of the contract. The court accepted the charges for subcontracted electrical work and some materials, applying the agreed administrative and profit margins.

Outcome

The court partially granted the contractor’s claim, awarding a total capital amount of $14,055.44 (plus applicable taxes, legal interest, and indemnity) against Catherine Bertheau and Christopher De Vito, who were held jointly and severally liable. Each party was ordered to pay their own legal costs.