Curtis White Const. Co., Inc. v. Butts & Billingsley Const. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1985
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: CURTIS WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. BUTTS & BILLINGSLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 84-61.

Page 1040

473 So.2d 1040

CURTIS WHITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. BUTTS & BILLINGSLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

84-61.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 21, 1985.

James C. Pino of Mitchell, Green, Pino & Medaris, Alabaster, for appellant.

Tom Radney of Radney & Morris, Alexander City, for appellee.

SHORES, Justice.

This dispute arose out of a paving contract which the plaintiff contends the defendant breached. The trial court, having heard the evidence, found for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm the order of the trial court, which is as follows:

"FINAL JUDGMENT

"This cause was heretofore heard by the Court, submitted by the parties, and taken under advisement. The Court having considered and reconsidered the evidence in the case finds as follows:

"The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract whereby the defendant was to perform certain paving work for the plaintiff for the sum of $18,493.00. The work was performed, passed inspection, and the defendant was paid the full consideration. Subsequent to the completion of the work, and the plaintiff's own evidence is in dispute concerning this point, but sometime between two months and eight months, the plaintiff experienced problems in connection with the defendant's work and called upon the defendant to correct same. On two occasions the defendant responded and attempted to repair the alleged defects; and then abandoned the project. The plaintiff contends that he was injured and damaged as a result of the defendant's breach of contract or breach of warranties in connection with the contract.

"The question before the Court is whether or not the defendant performed the contract as agreed; and in this regard the evidence is in irreconcilable conflict and it becomes the burden of the Court to rule for or against the contentions of the parties. As may be noted, this case has been under advisement for more than two months, and the Court has conscientiously endeavored to arrive at a correct result or answer to the dispute between two reputable business concerns.

"The tendency of the evidence indicates that the plaintiff's specifications for the work performed by the defendant were inadequate to begin with, calling for four-inch chert base rather than the usually recognized and recommended six-inch chert base. After the defendant submitted the initial bid of $20,277.60, the plaintiff requested another bid, seeking a cost reduction, and changed the specified four-inch chert base to two-inch crushed stone base to be mixed with the sub-base. This was resulting in a savings of $1,784.60, with the net new bid being $18,493.00. The last bid was dated September 23, 1981. It is somewhat perplexing to note that the plaintiff already had a bid from APAC-Alabama, Inc., dated August 12, 1981, in a lesser amount of $17,829.00 or in the alternative low of $16,491.72. The APAC bid specifically provided 'Sub-grade preparation to be done by others or at a negotiated price.' It is obvious to the Court tha...