Argo Construction Co. v. County of Los Angeles

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 1969 No. Civ. No. 32568Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment confirming an arbitration award, holding that the arbitration clause covered the dispute and that the trial court correctly interpreted the contract's modification regarding partition specifications.

Issues

Did the superior court err by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law when ordering arbitration?
Did the trial court err by not submitting the question of whether the partitions met specifications to arbitration?
Were the issues of waiver and compliance with contract procedures 'factual' determinations subject to arbitration under the contract?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[a] heavy presumption weighs the scales in favor of arbitrability”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

KAUS, P.J. On May 19, 1965, the Argo Construction Co., Inc., (“Argo”) made a contract with the County of Los Angeles under which it was to construct a certain building. Partitions were to be in accordance with certain specifications which were incorporated into the contract by reference. An addendum to the contract provided as follows: “ ‘ (1) Weber Showcase and Fixture Co., Inc. “Consept” [sic] partitions are used as a standard of construction and quality. Minor variations in construction and dimensions are permissible. Partitions by B. F. Hauserman or Mills will also be acceptr able, upon approval of shop drawings. ’ ”

During the construction Argo submitted as allegedly complying with the contract certain partitions designated as: ‘■‘Virginia Metal Products Mobilwall Jr.” Data submitted by Argo showed that the substitute partitions varied from the specifications in certain particulars. The county did not permit the installation of the Virginia partitions. Under protest Argo then installed the Hauserman partitions referred to in the addendum.

Paragraph 19 of the contract between Argo and the county provides that in the event the parties “are unable to agree with respect to any factual determination” under the terms of the contract, it is to be submitted to arbitration. Argo then petitioned the superior court for an order to compel arbitration, claiming in essence that it was caused unnecessary expense by the county's refusal to allow it to install the Virginia partitions.

The court ordered arbitration to proceed, reserving jurisdiction to define the issues to be arbitrated if the parties were unable to do so. The parties were unable and, after further proceedings, the court defined the issues as follows :

“1. Did Argo Construction Co., Inc. properly present the Virginia Metal Products Mobilwall Jr. movable partition for use on this project to the County of Los Angeles under the terms of the contract documents ?

“2. If the arbitrators determine that the answer to issue No. 1 above is in the negative, did the County of Los Angeles waiver [sic] strict compliance with the provisions of the contract documents relating to the submission of the Virginia [57]Metal Products Mobilwall, Jr. movable metal partitions for use on the project.

“3. If the arbitrators determine that the answer to either issue No. 1 or No. 2 above is in the affirmative, did the Virginia Metal Products Mobilwall Jr. movable metal partitions proposed to be used by Argo Construction Co., Inc. meet the standard of construction and quality of the Weber Showcase and Fixture Co., Inc., ‘consept’ [sic] partitions subject to minor variations in construction and dimensions ?

Argo Construction Co. v. County of Los Angeles

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III.

AI Brief