A contractor and homeowner mismatch in performance with no progress payments clause. The builder completes 25% of work, demands payment, then abandons. The homeowner sues for breach. What is the probable outcome?

• A. The builder is in breach by repudiation; homeowner may recover damages
• B. No breach by builder; homeowner bears risk
• C. Both parties are in breach
• D. Homeowner has no remedy

Answer: (A)

The fundamental idea here is that abandoning a contract after partially performing is a repudiation of the contract. When the contractor completes only a portion of the work and then refuses to finish, that signals an unwillingness or inability to perform the rest of the duties under the agreement. The homeowner, as the promisee, is therefore entitled to treat the contract as breached and seek damages.

Without a progress payments clause, the owner does not automatically owe payment just because some work was done. Instead, the remedy focuses on what it would take to finish the project or what the difference in value is between what was promised (full completion) and what was delivered (only 25% of the work). Damages are typically measured by the cost to complete the project in a reasonable manner (often by hiring another contractor), minus the value of the work already completed, plus incidental and consequential damages as appropriate. This aligns with forcing the breaching party to bear the loss of the unfinished contract rather than allowing the builder to walk away with payment for work unfinished.

So, the builder’s abandonment constitutes repudiation, the homeowner may terminate and sue for damages, and the damages reflect the cost to complete or the loss in value due to the breach. The other options don’t fit because there is a breach by the builder and the homeowner does have a remedy.