Gregoriou v. Loudoun Cnty. Sch. Bd.

Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This breach of contract action was noticed for hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion in Limine filed by the Loudoun County School Board. Counsel submitted written memoranda in addition to oral argument on the issues raised in the motions. Having only received the written response by the Plaintiffs a short time prior to the hearing on the motions, the Court indicated to counsel that it would take the matter under advisement and promptly notify them of its decision. Consistent with the representation made, the Court makes the following findings. It is noted that the matter is currently set for trial on March 11, 2010 with a jury.

Defendant School Board correctly observes that cursory review of the Amended Complaint would suggest that the contracts that are alleged to have been breached are those attached and "incorporated by reference" in the pleadings. These documents predate the letter of counsel for the plaintiffs [March 30, 2006] in which he represents, "…[a]ny offer made by Loudoun County Public Schools to make repairs at this point regarding the above mentioned property is unacceptable." This would suggest an absence of acceptance of any offer made in the written "scope of work" documents. Elementary contract principles would suggest that an offer without an acceptance is no contract at all.

In reply to the Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiffs contend that their action is based upon the breach of an oral agreement regarding repairs to their home as a result of blasting damage caused by agents of the School Board in the construction of a school. The scope of work documents attached and incorporated into the Amended Complaint are, "…evidence of the verbal Agreement between LCBS and Plaintiffs to make repairs to Plaintiffs' home resulting from the blasting" and that, "…LCBS breached its Agreement by failing to move Plaintiffs' family and exposing Plaintiffs' family to danger, uncertainty, and harm as LCSB through Defendant Centennial Contractors demanded work begin within a few days without providing a place to stay for the safety of the Plaintiffs' and their children."

The theory upon which plaintiffs seek recovery, while it may suggest close scrutiny of Centenial's position on privity, is, upon a deferential reading of the amended complaint that need be given on summary judgment, found in plaintiffs allegation that the defendants are in complete breach of the contracts and agreements entered into related hereto."

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.

In response to the Motion in Limine, plaintiffs indicate that they do not plan to use the expert designated in their discovery at trial. The Court is in agreement with counsel for the School Board, ant that, absent expert testimony, the damages claimed in the amount of $752,489.48 representing costs to complete the work contemplated by the alleged contract cannot be determined by reviewing invoices and lay testimony. However, plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to rely upon the amount the Loudoun County School Board intended to pay Centennial Contractors as evidence of compensatory damages recoverable should a breach of the oral agreements be determined.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the Motion in Limine with respect to any claimed damages in excess of $229,328.00.

Ms. Cave may draw an Order consistent with this opinion to which counsel may note their exception.

The Clerk shall forthwith send a copy of this Opinion to counsel.

Entered this ___ day of February 2010

__________

Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge