Your Contractor Messed Up. Can you Fire Them?
DOWNLOAD PDF- Mednick, Mordy
- Articles
Click “Subscribe Now” to get attorney insights on the latest developments in a range of services and industries.
Suppose you own a commercial building and intend to lease it to various tenants. But before you do, you need to make a number of improvements, so you hire a contractor.
The contract between you and the contractor is expected to last approximately one year. However, about seven months into the contract, you notice multiple issues with the contractor’s work:
- Numerous water leaks;
- The exterior painting is sloppy, incomplete, and incorrectly applied; and,
- There are multiple cracks in the flooring.
These errors – known as deficiencies in the construction industry – can range between severe (leaks in a roof) and less severe (the painting is incorrect). Many times, an owner in this situation will become extremely frustrated with the contractor and consider terminating the contract. The question is – is this legally permissible?
Right-to-Repair
Generally, a contractor will always have the right-to-repair a deficiency. In other words, an owner cannot terminate a contract without giving the contractor a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency. Suppose the owner terminates the contract without doing so. In that case, if the owner hires another contractor to repair the original contractor’s work, that owner cannot seek costs from the original contractor for the costs it incurred to make the repairs.
An Exception to the Rule
There is one major exception to this rule: if a deficiency is so serious that it prevents an owner from substantially receiving the whole benefit of the contract, known in the legal industry as a ‘fundamental breach,’ then an owner is (1) entitled to terminate the contract without allowing the contractor to repair the deficiency, and; (2) can sue that contractor for all of the costs it incurred to correct the deficiency.
In Conclusion
Whether something is considered a fundamental breach is a judgment call based on the facts of the particular case. For example, although painting the exterior of a commercial building may not be essential to the construction of the building as a whole, the opposite may be true if an owner hired the painter directly, and it was the painter’s only job to paint the exterior wall. Therefore, before terminating a contract because of a deficiency, always consider whether the deficiency is so fundamental that it entitles you to terminate the contract without giving the contractor a reasonable opportunity to repair.
Related Practices
Recent Insights
- May 05, 2026 Blogs Fraud vs. Contract Claims: The Risk of Stopping Your Analysis Too Soon
- April 22, 2026 In the News Kim Ferreira Joins Dickinson Wright Toronto Office as a Partner
- April 22, 2026 Media Mentions Law Week Colorado recently featured James Rigberg in a Q&A article titled "5 questions with James Rigberg at Dickinson Wright."
- April 22, 2026 In the News Reuters recently published Sara Jodka’s article, “Your website is a satisfying target: What you need to know about pixel-tracking litigation in 2026.”
- April 17, 2026 In the News Seven Dickinson Wright Attorneys Named 2026 Southwest Super Lawyers, Seven Named Rising Stars
- April 9, 2026 In the News Sharae’ Williams Named a “Top 40 Under 40” Honoree by the National Bar Association
- April 01, 2026 Blogs Spousal Privilege: ‘Til Litigation Do Us Part
- March 11, 2026 In the News Tyler Francis and Fernanda Martins Join Dickinson Wright Toronto Office
- March 4, 2026 In the News Ryan Lett Joins Dickinson Wright Columbus Office