Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., WOOD-HOPKINS
| Decision Date | 26 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. M--44,WOOD-HOPKINS,M--44 |
| Citation | 235 So.2d 548,61 A.L.R.3d 786 |
| Parties | CONTRACTING CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. MASONRY CONTRACTORS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Martin Sack, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Edward H. Robinson, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Defendant contractor has appealed a final judgment in favor of plaintiff subcontractor for the balance claimed to be due plaintiff under its masonry subcontract with defendant. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the material facts are not in dispute. Appellant contends that the trial court applied to the facts an erroneous principle of law in holding that it was indebted to its subcontractor in the amount claimed.
Appellant was the general contractor for the construction of an apartment building in Atlanta, Georgia. The contractor entered into a contract with subcontractor by which the latter agreed to furnish all necessary labor, material, and equipment to install and clean all masonry work in the building in strict accordance with the plans and specifications. The general conditions of the contract specified the type of brick masonry material which the subcontractor was required to install as follows:
* * *'
The Miami Stone face brick specified in the contract is a distinctive concrete product manufactured solely by Miami Stone of the Southeast, Inc., and has unique face characteristics, physical appearance in texture. The subcontractor purchased from the manufacturer the type of brick as specified, and properly installed it in the building in strict accordance with the plans and specifications. When the masonry work performed by the subcontractor was substantially completed, it was discovered that water leakage had occurred through the brick installation into the interior of the building. Investigation and chemical analysis revealed that the leakage was occurring through the mortar bond between the Miami Stone caused by a failure of the mortar to adhere to the brick. Expert testimony indicated that an acidic component of the stone reacted with the mortar to destroy its surface alkalinity. The alkaline characteristic of the mortar resulting from its content of cement and lime reacted against the acid surface of the brick preventing a tight bond between the mortar and the brick, thus allowing water to seep through the wall into the building. An expert engineer who performed an analysis of the masonry work expressed his opinion that the acid on the bricks' surface resulted from a defect in its manufacture or treatment--possibly a mold releasing compound which allowed the removal of the brick from the mold during manufacture which the manufacturer had failed to remove or clean from the brick before selling and delivering them to the subcontractor. The contractor, upon discovery of the condition caused by the latent defect in the brick, called upon the subcontractor to correct the condition by waterproofing the exterior walls of the building. Upon the subcontractor's refusal to accede to this demand, the contractor proceeded to have the condition corrected at a cost of $12,255.00.
Because of the foregoing, the contractor withheld from final payment due the subcontractor the cost of correcting the defective condition of the walls for which amount the subcontractor brought this suit. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the subcontractor for the balance of the contract price due him without deducting therefrom any amount expended by the contractor in making the exterior walls of the building watertight.
The general conditions of the contract between the parties contain the following provisions:
'Unless otherwise specified all materials shall be new and both workmanship and materials shall be of good quality. The Contractor shall, if required, furnish satisfactory evidence as to kind and quality of materials.
By this appeal the contractor contends that the subcontractor purchased from the manufacturer brick containing a latent defect which prevented a watertight bonding of the mortar and the brick thereby resulting in a seepage of water into the interior of the building. Appellant contends that under the terms of the contract quoted above the subcontractor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Safer v. Perper, s. 75-1576 and 75-1577
...See Wisconsin Red Pressed Brick Co. v. Hood, 67 Minn. 329, 69 N.W. 1091 (1897); Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors Inc., 235 So.2d 548, 61 A.L.R.3d 786 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970). See also Mattos, Inc. v. Hash, Md., 368 A.2d 993 (1977); Erdman v. Johnson Bros. Radio & Televisio......
-
Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley
...cases, and we find only one case on point among decisions from other jurisdictions. The court in Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., (Fla.App.1970) 235 So.2d 548, concluded that a builder could not be held liable on a negligence theory when the insufficiency resulted ......
-
Trustees of Indiana University v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...was the naming of materials that themselves had a latent defect--including bad bricks. See Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So.2d 548 (Fla.App.1970). Also, Indiana, whose law applies in this diversity suit, has long accepted the notion that detailed specificati......
-
Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. City of Sheboygan Falls
...made factual allegations that if proved would support, though not necessarily compel, see, e.g., Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So.2d 548 (Fla.App.1970), an inference that Scotty guaranteed that the incinerator would pass muster with the Wisconsin Department ......
-
Deconstructing warranties in the construction industry.
...not contemplate every contingency and exception in the law. For example, in Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So. 2d 548, 552 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1970), a subcontractor was excused from its express warranty to provide good quality construction materials because it wa......