Axenics, Inc. f/k/a RenTec Corporation v. Turner Construction Company & a.

Summary

The court held that the parties did not abandon their subcontract because their changes and deviations were contemplated by the agreement and did not show an intent to cease being bound. It vacated the ruling against Axenics on breach of contract because the trial court improperly conflated breach with abandonment, and it reversed the unjust-enrichment award because the subcontract governed the claimed extra work and costs and Stryker had not received a benefit it would be unconscionable to retain. The court also held that an internal memorandum prepared for settlement purposes was inadmissible under the compromise-evidence rule, while affirming the rejection of Axenics’ consumer-protection claim.