Spahn
Spahn v. Richards
Opinion
Opinion
Fujisaki, J.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs purchased property in Berkeley intending to demolish the existing structure and build a new residence. Richards, a licensed contractor, demolished the structure but did not build the new house. A. The Lawsuit In 2017, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Richards alleging causes of action for breach of oral contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel.2 Plaintiffs alleged they met with Richards in June 2015 and reached “an agreement that Richards would perform all work (the demolition and construction of the new residence) in two phases; the demolition phase for $12,500 and building the new residence for $515,000.” According to the complaint, plaintiffs and Richards “agreed on this fixed price contract and entered into this oral contract in June 2015.” Then, on July 1, 2015, Richards allegedly “confirmed and agreed that he would perform the construction project” for $515,000 and would complete the work by May 2016. The complaint averred Richards breached the oral contract and violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to build the home. Plaintiffs’ promissory estoppel claim alleged…