STATE COURT CASES
43-2-0004 Estok Corp. v. O.A. Peterson Construction Co., App. Div. (per curiam) (13 pp.) In this action by a subcontractor alleging that defendant-general contractor breached the parties’ contract by failing to pay for additional work, the trial court’s decision dismissing the complaint, rejecting plaintiff’s defense of interference with performance of contractual obligations, and awarding defendant damages to cover the amount it paid to have plaintiff’s unfinished work completed and its non-conforming work fixed less the money that defendant would have owed plaintiff if it completed the job is affirmed. The panel finds no basis for disturbing the trial judge’s factual findings or conclusion that, given the facts, defendant’s conduct did not excuse plaintiff’s failure to return to the unfinished job. It also rejects plaintiff’s claim of estoppel since plaintiff has produced no case in which a subcontractor has been permitted to invoke estoppel to shift responsibility for an injury the subcontractor sustained by electing to question the general contractor in lieu of reading specifications incorporated in the contract — here, the contractor cannot be found to have acted in a manner that induced reliance.
