Justice Richard Braun
This action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien by trade contractors for work performed in connection with a construction project was consolidated. Plaintiffs contractors sought recovery against Rao’s for breach of contract and foreclosure of the lien. The court noted contractors offered credible evidence the contract work and additional work were authorized and approved by Rao’s agent, and Rao’s failed to controvert such evidence. It noted the parties’ course of dealing waived strict compliance with the requirement that any modifications were to be in signed writings. Rao’s expert testified the flooring on the project failed partly because the building was not sealed and not properly heated at the time the floors were installed. Yet, evidence showed Rao’s agent insisted, over objections, that the flooring be installed despite the lack of sealing or proper heat. Thus, the court stated Rao’s, through its agent, must be deemed to have accepted the risk the flooring would not hold due to such conditions and was responsible for problems with the flooring by failing to insure a consistent temperature was maintained. Thus, plaintiffs established the existence of valid mechanic’s liens and entitled to foreclose thereon.
