Utah Court of Appeals
Can construction contracts be enforceable when material details are left incomplete? Syme v. Symphony Group Explained
Summary
Al and Martha Syme contracted with Symphony Group LLC for construction of a custom home, paying earnest money and a construction deposit. When the Symes cancelled before construction began, Symphony retained both deposits, claiming the Symes breached by failing to provide a loan pre-approval letter. The district court granted summary judgment for Symphony on all claims, but the court of appeals reversed the breach of contract ruling while affirming the contract enforceability determination.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed the enforceability of construction contracts with incomplete terms in Syme v. Symphony Group LLC, providing important guidance for contractors and homeowners entering into custom home construction agreements.
Background and Facts
Al and Martha Syme contracted with Symphony Group LLC to build a custom home in Layton, Utah. The written agreement included the basic house details, price, and location but left material selections like brick color, countertops, and flooring for future meetings. The Symes paid $2,000 in earnest money and a $48,000 construction deposit. The contract required them to provide loan pre-approval within ten days and again at a “Color Selection Meeting,” but this meeting never occurred. When the Symes cancelled through their attorney, Symphony retained both deposits, claiming breach for failure to provide the loan pre-approval letter.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented three main issues: whether the agreement was too indefinite to be enforceable given the missing material specifications; whether the Symes breached by failing to provide loan pre-approval documentation; and whether Symphony’s retention of deposits constituted unconscionable liquidated damages.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals affirmed that the contract was enforceable despite incomplete terms. Under Utah’s contract formation doctrine, agreements are valid when parties have “a meeting of the minds as to the integral features” and terms are “sufficiently definite as to be capable of being enforced.” The court found the essential terms—price, location, and basic specifications—were present, while missing details were contemplated for future selection. However, the court reversed on the breach of contract claim, finding the district court erroneously conflated two separate pre-approval requirements. Since the Color Selection Meeting never occurred, the Symes could not have breached their obligation to provide pre-approval documentation at that meeting.
Practice Implications
This decision provides crucial guidance for construction contract drafting. Contractors can include incomplete specifications in initial agreements provided essential terms are clear and a defined process exists for completing details. However, practitioners must carefully distinguish between different contractual obligations and ensure that breach consequences correspond to the specific provision violated. When drafting agreements with future meetings, clearly specify which party bears responsibility for scheduling and what constitutes compliance with meeting-dependent requirements.
Case Details
Case Name
Syme v. Symphony Group
Citation
2018 UT App 212
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170531-CA
Date Decided
November 8, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A home construction contract was enforceable despite leaving some material selections for future meetings, but summary judgment on breach of contract was inappropriate where the plaintiff’s failure to provide a loan pre-approval letter was tied to a meeting that never occurred.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment decisions and questions of law
Practice Tip
When drafting construction contracts with future selection meetings, clearly specify which party has the obligation to schedule meetings and what happens if meetings never occur to avoid disputes over contractual performance.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.