O.W. Grun Roofing & Construction Co. v. Cope

Facts

The written contract required defendant to install a new roof on plaintiff’s home for $648.00. The contract describes the color of the shingles to be used as russet glow, which defendant defined as a brown varied color. Defendant acknowledges that it was his obligation to install a roof of uniform color. After defendant had installed the new roof, plaintiff noticed that it had streaks which she described as yellow, due to a difference in color or shade of some of the shingles. Defendant agreed to remedy the situation and he removed the nonconforming shingles. However, the replacement shingles do not match the remainder, and photographs introduced in evidence clearly show that the roof is not of a uniform color. Plaintiff testified that her roof has the appearance of having been patched, rather than having been completely replaced. The result is that only the western portion of the roof is of uniform color. When defendant originally installed the complete new roof, it used 24 squares of shingles. In an effort to achieve a roof of uniform color, five squares were ripped off and replaced. Although there is expert testimony to the effect that the disparity in color would not be noticeable after the shingles have been on the roof for about a year, there is testimony to the effect that, although some ten months have elapsed since defendant attempted to achieve a uniform coloration, the roof is still streaky on three sides.