Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Foster (P) agreed to supply coated steel bridge components to Hammond in accordance with Ohio Department of Transportation specifications (ODOT). Foster (P) hired Lane (D) to do the coating as per the specs. The job was to be finished in two stages. Problems developed in the first stage in which units were eventually shipped, but field repairs had to be made. P still owed D $18,018.06, but D agreed to an offset of $10,935.84 to make the field repairs. Stage II was set to begin and P still owed D $7,082.22 and D requested that those monies be paid. P then sent a letter to D asking for assurances of performance and that the monies still owed would not be released until those assurances were made by D. D would not discuss the matter until all monies owed were remitted. P then faced with damages for delay hired Encor Coating to complete Stage II at a cost of $42,055.00 more than D had agreed to. P sued D. The trial court found for D and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.