Summary
This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Distribution, Inc., against D&M Roofing & Siding, Inc.'s claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The court held that the unambiguous cancellation fee provision entitled D&M to no damages because it performed no actual repair work, and extrinsic evidence could not be used to rewrite the contract terms. Additionally, applying the invited error doctrine, the court precluded D&M from asserting alternative damages theories on appeal after conceding during earlier proceedings that its recovery was limited to the cancellation fee provision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether D&M is entitled to damages under the cancellation‑fee provision.
- Whether D&M may recover breach‑of‑contract damages beyond the cancellation‑fee provision.
- Whether D&M may recover any damages for Distribution's breach of an enforceable contract in light of the invited‑error doctrine.
Holdings
- D&M is not entitled to any damages under the cancellation‑fee provision because the provision applies only to proceeds paid for work actually performed by D&M, and D&M performed no work.
- D&M may not recover breach‑of‑contract damages outside the cancellation‑fee provision because its earlier admission limited the damages and the invited‑error doctrine bars it from now challenging that limitation.
- The district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed; although Distribution breached the contract, D&M did not seek nominal damages and therefore receives no award.
Key quotations
“A judicial admission is a formal act done in the course of judicial proceedings that is a substitute for evidence, thereby waiving or dispensing with the production of evidence by conceding for the purpose of litigation that the proposition of fact alleged by the opponent is true.” (708)
“Parties have no right to stipulate as to questions of law, and such a stipulation, if made, will be disregarded.” (713)
Factual background
Distribution owned a warehouse damaged by a storm. D&M Roofing & Siding inspected the damage and the parties entered into a written agreement under which D&M would perform repair work approved by Distribution's insurer. The agreement contained a "Cancellation Fee" provision that required Distribution to pay D&M 20% of the insurer's proceeds if Distribution failed to engage D&M to complete the work. Distribution ultimately hired a different contractor, paid the insurer, and D&M sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Distribution on both the breach‑of‑contract and unjust‑enrichment claims, relying on the appellant's admissions that its damages were limited to the cancellation‑fee provision. The appellant later attempted to revive additional breach‑of‑contract damages, but the trial court held the earlier admission was binding. The trial court then entered a final judgment dismissing all claims. The appellant appealed the final judgment.