finding that an obligor cannot establish that an obligee has contributed to the obligor’s failure to perform unless the obligor can prove the obligee itself failed to perform duties owed under the contract
How later courts described this case
- finding that an obligor cannot establish that an obligee has contributed to the obligor’s failure to perform unless the obligor can prove the obligee itself failed to perform duties owed under the contract
- referring to its decisions in Board of Levee Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Hulse , 167 La. 896 , 120 So. 589 , 590 (1929) and Favrot v. Favrot , 68 So. 3d 1099 , 1109 (La. Ct. App. 2011)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CRICHTON, J.,
additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
|TI agree with the per curiam opinion. I write separately to note that this holding is compelled, in my view, by the Civil Code dictate that “[c]ontracts have the effect of law for the parties.” La. C.C. art. 1983. Louisiana courts have never before imposed a theory of negligence upon a contractor where there has been no underlying finding of breach of contract. Because there was no such finding here, to hold otherwise would impose a new duty beyond the scope of the contract, which, in my view, this Court properly declines to do.