Facts

Kristin Wray entered into a contract with DPK Construction for construction services. DPK drafted and wrote the agreement, providing for residential improvements to begin on June 11, 2007 and to be completed by July 20, and specifying a projected cost.

During construction, DPK incurred additional construction fees, costs, labor, and expenses beyond the projected cost under the agreement. DPK failed to complete work by Nov. 13, and Wray refused to pay the additional amounts.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
DPK filed suit against Wray alleging breach of contract for her refusal to pay. DPK further contended that Wray breached the agreement by terminating DPK and stated that it never made assertions as to how long the entire project would take, but only made an estimate.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Wray contended that DPK stopped construction because she refused to sign change orders that were not requested by her or her architect and which were not performed. Wray alleged that the written contract was void under California Business and Professions Code because it omitted required elements to be stated in such residential improvement contracts. She further argued that the change orders were not incorporated into the contract.

Damages

DPK sought general, compensatory, and consequential damages. Wray filed a cross-complaint for damages incurred to complete unfinished work.

Result

The court rendered a verdict for the defense, finding the contract was void.