McComb, J. Facts: Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a contract whereby plaintiffs, contractors, agreed to do certain repair work on the outfall sewer of defendant municipality.
The sewer in question was elliptical in shape approximately 6 feet 1 inch in height and 5 feet in width, and was originally constructed by the use of three concentric rings of brick held together with mortar, referred to as the inner ring, the middle ring and the outer ring. The bricks in each ring were laid edgewise so that each ring was approximately 4 inches in thickness. For a space of about 13 inches on each side of the sewer there is a vertical section that is flat. Above this the ceiling of the sewer is shaped like an arch.
By the terms of the agreement defendant agreed to pay plaintiffs for the work upon the following basis:
“1) Per square foot for removing and replacing brick in the inner ring, $3.40;
“2) Per square foot for removing and replacing brick in the middle ring, $2.30;
“3) Per square foot for removing and replacing brick in the outer ring, $2.50;
“4) Per square foot for repointing existing bricks, $1.80.” The instructions to bidders contained this provision: “The following quantities are approximate only, and are not guaranteed to be correct. They are the quantities, however, which will be used for the purpose of comparing bids:
“1. 44,545 square feet remove and replace brick in inner ring of sewer.
[501]“2. 16,119 square feet remove and replace brick in middle ring of sewer.
“3. 8,470 square feet remove and replace brick in outer ring of sewer.
“4. 22,849 square feet repoint existing bricks.”
The specifications provided among other things:
“The quantities of work in any single addition or deduction, or the net total result of all additions or deductions in this contract, shall not change the quantity of work under any item in the Proposal by more than 25% of the original quantity included in such item, provided, however, that if the item comprises less than 10% of the contract cost, this limitation shall not apply.”
Plaintiffs’ contention is set forth in the following portion of a letter sent to the board of public works, a copy of which was attached to their claim:
“We do not agree with the method of computing the number of square feet of brick work completed under items' number 1, 2 and 3; and we believe that we are entitled to additional payments under item number 4, because of a contract provision limiting changes in quantities.
“Payment for removing and replacing brick under items 1, 2 and 3 has been based on quantities determined in the following manner-—the surface width of each ring of brick replaced was measured on the face of the brickwork nearest to the inner surface of the sewer and this measurement multiplied by the horizontal length of the replaced section was taken as the number of square feet replaced. As shown on the bottom of the attached sketch, this method of determining areas does not provide payment for a segment of brickwork which occurs in each square foot, due to the fact that the brick are laid on a circular surface. We believe that the proper method of determining the area of brick replaced is by using a width dimension measured on the center line of each course of brick and multiplying this figure by the horizontal length.
“The City has computed the surface width of the inner surface of the sewer above the spring line, by assuming a circular section with a 2'-6" radius centered 6-%" above the spring line; this dimension is 8.93 feet. Our company has computed the same dimension measured on the center line of the brick course, and, as shown on the attached sketch, have arrived at a percentage increase of 6.75% to be added to [502]all brickwork to adjust the City’s estimated quantities, to center line computed quantities. In the last paragraph of this letter we are itemizing the additional payments to be made for brickwork under this method of computing quantities.”
After trial before the court without a jury the court found: 1. That defendant had not paid plaintiffs the minimum amount to which they were entitled under their contract, and 2. That the city had correctly computed the amount due for brickwork completed by plaintiffs.
From the portion of the judgment favorable to plaintiffs defendant appeals, and from the judgment against them plaintiffs appeal.
A. Defendant’s Appeal.
Question: Did the trial court properly award plaintiffs $7,916.28 because defendant had not paid plaintiffs the minimum amount guaranteed by the contract?
Yes. Under the terms of the agreement between the parties it was provided that the total quantity of repointing work would be on 22,849 square feet, and that such footage would not be increased or decreased by more than 25 per cent of said amount.
The evidence discloses that defendant reduced the quantity of said repointing to 10,685.02 square feet, and that plaintiffs were damaged by losing net profits in the sum of $7,916.28. There is no merit in defendant’s contention that the provisions in the instructions to bidders reading, “The following quantities are approximate only and are not guaranteed to be correct. They are the quantities, however, which will be used for the purpose of comparing bids . . .,” permitted defendant to order any quantity it saw fit because the specifications which must be read in conjunction with the instructions to bidders specifically provided that 22,849 square feet of re-pointing existing bricks should not be reduced by more than 25 per cent of such contract. It is elementary that in the interpretation of a written contract all of the writing must be read together and every part interpreted with reference to the whole so that each provision therein will be effective for its general purpose. (Ghirardelli v. Peninsula Properties Co., 16 Cal.2d 494, 496 [107 P.2d 41].)
By applying this rule it is evident that the provisions in the specifications modified the statement in the instructions to bidders. Therefore the trial court’s judgment against the city upon this phase of the ease was correct.
[503] B. Plaintiffs’ Appeal.
Question: Did the trial court apply the proper standard of measurement for determining the square feet of trick for which defendant should pay plaintifff
Yes. Bids were received upon the square foot basis on the contract so far as the inner ring was concerned. The contract provided that plaintiffs should be paid for “square feet remove and replace brick in inner ring of sewer,” and the trial court found, “that in preparing their estimate for said work and in submitting their bid the plaintiffs in truth and in fact based the same on inner surface measurements and hence are not entitled to be paid for said work on any other basis of measurement.”
The trial court’s finding was supported by plaintiff Hoagland who testified as follows:
1 ‘ Q. Now, the quantity of brick required in any given ring, inner or middle or outer ring, the number of brick and amount of brick was not changed by the fact that it was constructed on a curvature, was it? A. I think that is right.
11Q. The same number of brick were used. The difference, caused by the curvature was a matter of different thickness of the mortar, is that right ? A. Yes.
“Q. Now, in figuring your cost of doing this job prior to the submission of the bid, submitting your bid figure, you took into consideration the quantity of mortar that would be necessary to be used, did you not? . . .
“A. Yes. . . .
“Q. At the time you were figuring your work and submitting your contract price, you knew these bricks were on a curvature, did you not ? A. That is correct. ’ ’
It is thus evident by plaintiffs’ own admission that plaintiffs figured the additional quantity of material rendered necessary by the fact that the brick work was to be laid on a curve and that their bid was submitted in accordance therewith. It therefore necessarily follows that if plaintiffs are paid an additional amount by reason of the quantity of work being determined other than upon a square foot basis they will receive more than they are entitled to.
Since the judgment of the court was predicated upon unambiguous language in the contract and its finding was supported by the evidence the judgment was correct.
Affirmed.
Moore, P. J., concurred.