1

Case Law Analysis: Contract Law

First Name, Last Name

Department of, University of

Course Name

Dr. Professor’s Name

Date
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 2

A Summary of the Facts and Ruling of T.C.B. Construction Company, Inc., v. W.C. Fore

Trucking, Inc., No. 2010–CT–00177–SCT. (Supreme Court of

Mississippi 2013)

T.C.B. Construction Company, Inc. is a plaintiff;

W.C. Fore Trucking, Inc. is a defendant.

Harrison County, which suffered from Hurricane Katrina, signed a contract with W.C.

Fore Trucking, according to which Fore had to remove debris from the county roads. Fore

outsourced debris removal to TCB Construction. According to a contract signed between Fore

and TCB, TCB was responsible for debris removal in the north area of the county. However,

TCB removed debris not only in the north area but also in the south area of the county. Fore

received payment from the county for the whole job done by TCB but did not pay its

subcontractor in full and owed $7 million to TCB (T.C.B. Construction Company, Inc., v. W.C.

Fore Trucking, Inc., 2013).

Fore argued that because, according to the terms of the written subcontract, TCB had to

remove debris only in the north area of Harrison County, the company was not obliged to pay its

subcontractor for the job done in the south area. TCB claimed that “the contract was orally

modified to include removal south of Highway 53” (Ibid, p. 3). In other words, the parties did

not agree on the volume of work that had to be paid for. The case was removed to a jury trial.

The jury formally decided that the plaintiff and the defendant had actually made partial changes

to the subcontract and included the south area in their subcontract. However, the jury awarded

the plaintiff only half of the amount the defendant owed to the plaintiff.

The case proceeded to the Mississippi Court of Appeals that forced the defendant to pay

the full amount owed to the plaintiff but denied the request of the plaintiff for punitive damages.
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 3

TCB appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court and raised the punitive damages issue. The

Supreme Court remanded the case “to the Harrison County Circuit Court, for a jury trial on

punitive damages” (Ibid, p. 9). Importantly, the decision of the Mississippi Court of Appeals to

force Fore to pay the full amount owed to TCB can be explained by the fact the contract signed

between the Fore and TCB stipulated that “the contract can and will be modified based upon the

facts and circumstances of all debris removal” (Ibid, p. 2).

An Analysis of How the Legal Case Could Impact T.C.B. Construction Company,

Inc. and W.C. Fore Trucking, Inc.

Positive impacts of the law case under discussion on TCB is an increase in current assets

due to debt paid by Fore and gaining experience in dealmaking with a focus on contract details

that will prevent the necessity for time-consuming legal proceedings in the future. At the same

time, the negative impacts of the law case on TCB are a risk of losing prospective customers.

One could argue that businesses avoid dealing with those companies that tend to resolve disputes

at the court since "cases have a way of damaging relationships, tarnishing reputations, and eating

up enormous sums of money, time, and talent" (Allison, 1990, p. 166). It is worth pointing out

that there is a positive impact of the law case on the defendant, too. That impact is the awareness

of the need to specify the volume of work and specific location in which another party must

perform its job, thus, avoiding legal proceedings, and the need to pay court costs and attorneys’

fees in the future. On the other hand, the negative impacts of the law case under discussion on

Fore are a damaged business reputation and the need to spend resources on laborious legal

proceedings.

The Way the Legal Case Could Impact a Specific Organization

If the court held that Company (X) had breached a contract and decided in favor of
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 4

our subcontracting company, this would cause Company (X) to pay not only the full

amount owed to a subcontracting company but also court costs and attorneys' fees.

Unforeseen expenses would have led to Company (X) inability to meet its short-term

liabilities. Also, if Company (X), like Fore Tracking, relied heavily on outsourcing, the

court ruling in favor of a subcontracting company would undermine trust in the

Company's willingness to meet its obligations towards subcontracting companies. At the

same time, a lack of trust in the Company's willingness to meet its obligations would have

caused the reluctance on the part of subcontracting companies to deal with it that would

ultimately have a negative effect on the volume of work done by Company (X).
CASE LAW ANALYSIS 5

References

Allison, J.R. (1990). Five ways to keep disputes out of court. Harvard Business Review, 68(1):

166-168. Visited via Capella University Library

http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

vid=1&sid=2a356f64-cf1b-4af2-9186-869023701f0c%40sessionmgr4008

T.C.B. Construction Company, Inc., v. W.C. Fore Trucking, Inc., No. 2010–CT–00177–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, 2013. Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-court-of-appeals/1603259.html