Cedartech v. Strader

When it comes to substantial performance, the determination is “a question of fact” that is to be decided by the trial court using the preponderance of the evidence standard. American Petrofina v. D & L Oil Supply, 283 Or 183, 195, 583 P2d 521 (1978).

Defendant appealed the judgment awarding Cedartech money on Defendant's claim of nonpayment. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s ruling that Cedartech was entitled to prevail on Defendant's contract because they substantially performed it. On appeal, Defendant argued that Cedartech did not repair specific leaks that were part of an amended contract. In response, Cedartech argued that substantial performance occurred and cross-appealed the supplemental judgment denying an award for attorney fees. When it comes to substantial performance, the determination is “a question of fact” that is to be decided by the trial court using the preponderance of the evidence standard. American Petrofina v. D & L Oil Supply, 283 Or 183, 195, 583 P2d 521 (1978). The Court held that Cedartech substantially performed its duties by completing the available task and that the majority of the unfinished work was due to Defendant preventing Cedartech's ability to do so. The Court reversed and remanded as to attorneys fees and affirmed the general judgment.