Owner v. Contractor: Material Substitution and Contractual Breach

A contractor, hired to construct a building with specific materials, substituted cheaper materials without the owner's consent; the owner sued for rescission of the contract and damages, arguing the substitution constituted a breach of contractual obligation and fraud. The court of last resort quashed the lower court's decision, holding that while the substitution of materials without authorization was a breach justifying rescission or termination of the contract, the mere substitution of materials, absent proof of fraudulent intent specifically aimed at deceiving the owner regarding the quality of the work, did not automatically establish the grounds for criminal fraud required to void the contract based on a fundamental error regarding the substance of the object of the contract.