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

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

P sued D based on the fact that P agreed to furnish certain materials and labor to build a septic system on D’s land. The trial court adopted the allegations of the complaint as its findings. D contends that P was always a subcontractor of another by the name of Keller. P claims that it was in privity to D, contrary to the conclusion accepted by the court. D claims to have paid Keller for the septic system. The trial court ordered P to pay D based on knowledge and receipt of the goods but found that P was, in fact, a subcontractor and not in privity with D.

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

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