Valley Construction Co. v. City of Calistoga

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 1946 No. Civ. 12946Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contract's broad incorporation language made the specifications, including a provision allowing for changes in location and design without additional compensation, an integral part of the agreement. Furthermore, the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence regarding the nature of the changes and an admission by the contractor.

Issues

Whether the contract's reference to plans and specifications incorporated them as an integral part of the agreement.
Whether the change in the spillway's location and design exceeded the scope of the contract's modification clause.
Whether the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the broad language of this contract we are satisfied that the entire plans and specifications, including paragraph 48 above quoted, became an integral part of the contract.”

DOOLING, J.

The plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendant, city of Calistoga, for the construction bf a dam and spillway. The contract was based upon unit prices for the various items included in the contract. The contract contained the following provision:

“True copies of the Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal of the Contractor, and Plans and Specifications, together with all modifications incorporated in those documents before their execution, are hereunto annexed by reference thereto incorporated herein and made a part hereof ■ as though in this document fully set forth. ’ ’

Paragraph 48 of the specifications so annexed and referred to reads:

“48. MODIFICATION OF PLANS. The location of the dam, spillway, control works, cut-off trenches and appurtenances are shown on the plans as tentative, based on the expectation of finding satisfactory foundation in the positions shown. If excavation discloses the necessity of change to other elevations or locations than shown on the plans to secure satisfactory foundations, and to satisfy the conditions of greatest economy and the requisite safety, the contractor

[841]

shall not be entitled to any compensation by reason of such change, other than payment for the actual work done based on the measured quantities at the unit prices named in his contract.”

The spillway as shown in the original plans was on the right abutment of the creek, but after the work on the dam was commenced the State Department of Public Works determined that as so planned the spillway would be unsafe and the plans were changed to require the construction of the spillway on the opposite bank.

After the work was completed and the final payment according to the unit prices had been received in full plaintiffs commenced this action seeking the recovery of an additional amount alleged to be the increase in the cost of the work of constructing the spillway in the new location. The trial court gave judgment for defendant and this appeal followed.

Appellants first claim that paragraph 48 of the specifications was not part of the contract, citing such cases as

Valley Construction Co. v. City of Calistoga

AI Brief

DOOLING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief