Holden Engineering and Surveying, Inc. v. Pembroke Road Realty Trust, 92-486
Decision Date | 07 July 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 92-486,92-486 |
Citation | 137 N.H. 393,628 A.2d 260 |
Parties | HOLDEN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC. v. PEMBROKE ROAD REALTY TRUST and another. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Joseph F. McDowell, III, P.A., Manchester (Edward C. Dial, Jr., on the brief), on brief, for plaintiff.
Lauren S. Vallari, Concord, on brief, for defendants.
The plaintiff, Holden Engineering and Surveying, Inc., sued the defendants, Pembroke Road Realty Trust and Jerry McCarthy (individually and as trustee of Pembroke), for payment pursuant to a contract between the parties. The Concord District Court (Sullivan, J.) ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not performed a condition precedent to payment. The plaintiff appeals this decision, and we reverse.
In early August 1991, the defendants hired the plaintiff to help them subdivide a plot of land. The parties' contract specifies the " Objectives and Scope of Services" as follows: Under the heading, "Budget Estimate," the contract states, Immediately following the number, "$3,000.00," appear the handwritten words, "(Not to exceed)," and defendant Jerry McCarthy's initials. Paragraph eleven of the contract states, in pertinent part:
At the end of this paragraph appear more handwritten words--"Based upon Percentage of Completion"--and, again, Jerry McCarthy's initials. Both parties agree that the handwritten words are binding amendments to the contract.
The plaintiff performed "a substantial amount of work" under the contract and obtained conditional approval from the Concord Planning Board for the defendants' proposed subdivision on September 18, 1991. The conditions placed on final approval stemmed from the discovery that the defendants' land contains a habitat for the Karner Blue butterfly, an endangered species. The conditions require "[t]he conveyance of a buffer easement to the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHNHI) for lot 19 for the area so noted on the subdivision plan ... [and] [t]he development of a management agreement between the owner of lot 12 for the Karner Blue Habitat on said lot." These two conditions apparently have not been met, and therefore, the defendants have yet to receive final board approval for their proposed subdivision.
The defendants have also yet to pay the plaintiff for any of the work performed under the contract, although the plaintiff sent them four invoices for services rendered. The invoices were dated August 9, 1991, August 23, 1991, September 6, 1991, and November 15, 1991, and listed, respectively, the following amounts due: $65, $3,010, $100, and $1,185.51. In response to the plaintiff's suit to recover these amounts, the defendants claimed that the parties' contract obligates the plaintiff to procure final board approval and makes such approval a condition precedent to any payment. The plaintiff disagreed, maintaining that it fully performed under the contract, and that the conditions imposed by the board for final approval were unforeseeable and beyond the scope of the plaintiff's expertise. Each party alleged that the other failed to cooperate in attempting to obtain final approval.
The district court held a hearing and admitted extrinsic evidence to interpret the contract. The court decided:
This appeal followed.
Before this court, the plaintiff makes the same arguments it made below and asks that we enter judgment in its favor. The defendants also repeat their earlier contentions, arguing first that the contract provision regarding the plaintiff's obligation to procure board approval is ambiguous. Consequently, they contend, the district court properly admitted extrinsic evidence to determine whether such approval is a condition precedent to payment under the contract. See Erin Food Servs., Inc. v. 688 Props., 119 N.H. 232, 235, 401 A.2d 201, 203 (1979). Because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mortner v. Thompson
...signal words generally recognized to create conditions precedent in a contractual agreement. See Holden Eng'g and Surveying v. Pembroke Rd. Realty Trust, 137 N.H. 393, 396, 628 A.2d 260 (1993). Thus, according to the Estate and Judith, the trial court should have concluded that Husband and ......
-
Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists
...See Estate of Frederick v. Frederick, 141 N.H. 530, 531-32, 687 A.2d 711, 713 (1996); cf. Holden Eng'g and Surveying v. Pembroke Rd. Realty Trust, 137 N.H. 393, 396, 628 A.2d 260, 262 (1993) (suggesting that a different standard of review would be used if trial court properly admitted extri......
-
Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists
...See Estate of Frederick v. Frederick, 141 N.H. 530, 531–32, 687 A.2d 711, 713 (1996) ; cf. Holden Eng'g and Surveying v. Pembroke Rd. Realty Trust, 137 N.H. 393, 396, 628 A.2d 260, 262 (1993) (suggesting that a different standard of review would be used if trial court properly admitted extr......
-
Santos v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
...provisions as conditions precedent unless required by the plain language of the agreement. Holden Eng'g and Surveying v. Pembroke Rd. Realty Trust, 137 N.H. 393, 396, 628 A.2d 260 (1993). The plain language of the excess UIM endorsement requires such a construction here. The excess UIM endo......