Kratzer Const. v. Hardy Const.

Summary

The court held that the subcontract required Kratzer to obtain releases and waivers from his subcontractors and suppliers before Hardy's final-payment obligation arose. Because Kratzer never satisfied that condition and Hardy's settlement proposals did not waive or replace it, Hardy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, although it still owed Kratzer $81,153 for services. The court therefore reversed the awards of interest and attorney fees, affirmed the calculation of the principal amount, and remanded for entry of judgment in Hardy's favor.