Engineer's Failure to Communicate or Deliver Work Product

Puerto Rico Law Controversies

Engineer's Failure to Communicate or Deliver Work Product Constitutes Defective Performance Justifying Contract Cancellation Under Puerto Rico Civil Code

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court: Tribunal de Apelaciones de Puerto Rico

Date: February 27, 2026

Citation: Matos Nazario v. Rivera Ayala, 2026 WL 710443 (TCA)

Summary of Relevant Facts

In May 2024, Juan Eugenio Matos Nazario contracted engineer Humberto Rivera Ayala to segregate a parcel of land in Cabo Rojo. Matos Nazario delivered a check for $4,200.00 (50% of the total $8,400.00 contract price) on June 7, 2024. After payment, Rivera Ayala became unresponsive—ignoring emails, phone calls, and letters. Matos Nazario called over 20 times without reaching Rivera Ayala, received no messages in response, and received no details about the segregation plan. On July 26, 2024, Matos Nazario sent a formal letter canceling the project.

Procedural Background

On August 27, 2024, Matos Nazario filed a complaint with the Departamento de Asuntos del Consumidor (DACO) alleging deceptive practices. Rivera Ayala answered on October 23, 2024, admitting the deposit was made but claiming he performed work totaling $5,010.00 in expenses. DACO held a hearing and issued a Resolution on October 16, 2025, finding that Rivera Ayala substantially breached the contract and ordering return of the $4,200.00 deposit. Rivera Ayala's motion for reconsideration was denied, and he sought judicial review.

Main Controversies

The main controversies were: (1) whether Rivera Ayala's failure to communicate or deliver work product constituted a substantial breach justifying contract cancellation under Puerto Rico civil law; and (2) whether DACO erred in ordering the return of the deposit when Rivera Ayala claimed he was performing work during the relevant period.

Position of the Parties

Rivera Ayala argued that he was performing professional work during the relevant period and that the $5,010.00 in claimed expenses exceeded the deposit, making a refund unwarranted. Matos Nazario argued that Rivera Ayala's total failure to communicate, provide updates, or deliver any work product after receiving payment constituted a material breach justifying cancellation.

Holding or Decision

The Tribunal de Apelaciones confirmed the DACO Resolution ordering return of the $4,200.00 deposit.

Reasons for the Decision

The court applied Puerto Rico contract law principles governing partial and defective performance. Under this framework, resolution of a contract is justified when partial or defective performance frustrates the contract's purpose for the injured party. The court found that the segregation plan was incomplete (lacking measurement tables and an elaboration date), that Rivera Ayala provided no updates on the project, did not respond to any communications after receiving the check, and presented no evidence of work logs, hours breakdowns, or information collected. These facts constituted defective performance affecting the entire purpose of the agreement. Although the court noted that Matos Nazario could have claimed additional damages under Article 1158 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, he did not, so the remedy was limited to the $4,200.00 return.