Jackson Materials Co. v. Grand River Dam Authority
| Decision Date | 18 September 1945 |
| Docket Number | 31420. |
| Citation | 170 P.2d 552,197 Okla. 353,1945 OK 228 |
| Parties | JACKSON MATERIALS CO. v. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied July 9, 1946.
Appeal from District Court, Craig County; N. B. Johnson, Judge.
Action by Jackson Materials Company against Grand River Dam Authority to recover for certain alleged extra work done as subcontractor in the construction of dam and power house. From a judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. While words technical or peculiar to trades, occupations, or businesses, and therefore their meaning not generally known may be explained by parol when necessary to give proper meaning to a contract in writing, this rule does not extend to such an explanation thereof as would amount to a construction of the contract different from that evidently intended by the parties.
2. A person who agrees to do, for a fixed sum, a thing possible to the done, will not be excused from performing or become entitled to additional compensation because unforeseen difficulties are encountered.
3. Where a contract between an owner and a building contractor specifically provides the method and procedure for claims for work outside the requirements of the contract, and specifically provides the method of keeping and furnishing account of the extra work and the time within which claims for compensation therefor are to be presented, and further provides that by failure to comply with such procedure the contractor is to be deemed to have performed such extra work without charge and entitled to no compensation therefor compliance with such provisions is essential for the recovery by the contractor of compensation for such extra work.
4. Where, as provided by a specification, a contractor, for a stipulated consideration, furnishes sand of required grade but is required by another specification to add additional fine sand to comply with a specified test for strength of the product, the contractor is not entitled to extra compensation for the cost of the additional fine sand.
H. L Smith, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. Davidson and Edward P. Marshall, both of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This is an action by Jackson Materials Company, a corporation, against Grand River Dam Authority to recover for certain alleged extra work done as subcontractor in the construction of the Grand River Dam and Power House. Massman Construction Company, of Kansas City, herein referred to as Massman, was the principal contractor. The principal contract provided that the contractor would perform all work and furnish all supplies, with certain exceptions, to construct the dam and power house in accordance with the plans and specifications, under the direction of the engineers employed by the Authority. Massman was to be paid a gross sum for certain items, and as to others, according to the quantity of work and materials. A vast amount of concrete of different grades was estimated as necessary. Sand and crshed rock (aggregate) were to be furnished by Massman at its own cost but a stipulated rate of pay for concrete placed in the project was provided. The specifications estimated that approximately 500,000 tons of crushed rock or aggregate and approximately 350,000 tons of sand would be required. The contract provided that the contractor should not sublet any part of the work without the written consent of the Authority and that 'all clauses and requirements, terms and conditions of this contract and of the plans and specifications shall be made a part of all subcontracts for any part of the work on this project.'
Massman, by written agreement, sublet to L. B. Jackson, Harley T. Price, and Howard Frye, partners, quarrying, crushing, and delivering, f. o. b. cars at the site of the quarry designated by the Authority, the rock necessary for the aggregate.
By separate written contract, Massman sublet the work of furnishing, f. o. b. cars at a site on the Arkansas River near Wybark, Oklahoma, and within the then established freight rate zone, the sand necessary for the construction of said project. It was agreed that the subcontractors might incorporate, thus a corporation designated as Jackson Materials Company became the subcontractor. The subcontract for the crushed rock provided that the subcontractor should build, at the quarry site designated by the Authority, suitable quarry and rock crushing plant capable of producing and supplying 1500 tons of crushed rock per day and to continue to operate the plant so as to maintain at all times during the continuance of the work, 500 tons of crushed rock at the crusher, ready for shipment to Massman, and 10,000 tons of suitable crushed rock in stock pile at Massman's concrete mixing plant at the dam. The subcontract also provided that the subcontractor would remove all 'over-burden' at the rock quarry in accordance with the principal contract between Massman and the Authority. The price to be paid plaintiff under the subcontract was 70¢ per ton for crushed rock, and 25¢ per cubic yard for removing over-burden at the rock quarry. The contract price for sand was 30¢ per ton f. o. b. cars at the sand plant. The crushed rock and sand were to be produced, loaded and shipped so as to comply with all the provisions of the principal contract between Massman and the Authority.
After the completion of the project, plaintiff commenced this action against the Authority to recover for alleged extra work. In the first cause of action plaintiff claims that between June 23 and July 24, 1939, the Authority demanded that it be furnished with stone in quantities not specified in the subcontract and in an amount beyond the capacity of the quarry designated by the Authority; that the Authority ordered that plaintiff obtain additional stone from a quarry known as the Anderson Quarry located some distance from its quarry and crusher; that the order was made by one of the Authority's engineers, within the scope of the employment; that pursuant to said order, plaintiff delivered the stone so demanded and in doing so, expended the sum of $12,502.72 for freight from the Anderson Quarry to plaintiff's plant, and that plaintiff demanded reimbursement in the amount so expended, which the Authority refused to pay. Prayer was for judgment for said sum.
The second cause of action is for 'super-stripping', that is, removal of sandstone as a part of the over-burden at the rock quarry. Plaintiff alleged that notwithstanding the contract did not require such super-stripping, the Authority ordered and directed plaintiff to remove super-stripping; that pursuant to said order, plaintiff removed 6,906.2 cubic yards of super-stripping which plaintiff asserted was to be paid for at the rate of $1.75 per cubic yard and for this alleged extra work, plaintiff prayed judgment for $12,085.85.
In the third cause of action, plaintiff claimed that the Authority designated the place where the quarry was to be located for the rock to be furnished and that the site so located was unsuitable for such operations, all of which was known to the Authority and its employees, and that in the operation of said quarry, mud seams were encountered so that it became necessary for plaintiff to remove 16,849.8 tons of mud from the seams in the quarry; that it was reasonably worth $5 per ton to remove said mud, including hindrance and delay in the prosecution of the work; that by the use of ordinary care, the Authority could have determined that said quarry site contained mud seams which would necessarily require removal of the mud and hinder and delay plaintiff in the prosecution of its work; that plaintiff has demanded compensation therefor in the sum of $84,249 and that plaintiff is entitled to recover said sum because of the carelessness and negligence of the Authority in selecting a site wholly unsuitable for the purpose of the rock quarry.
In its fourth cause of action, plaintiff claims that the rock was quarried down to a layer of flint used as the floor of the quarry; that the Authority's engineer insisted that plaintiff should remove the flint; that the limestone below the flint was the rock demanded by the Authority; that plaintiff drilled and blasted through said layer of flint as ordered by the Authority's engineer and found that the rock lying beneath same was unsatisfactory; that in carrying out said order, plaintiff expended the sum of $1500 for which plaintiff prayed judgment.
The fifth cause of action is based upon the subcontract for furnishing sand. Plaintiff alleged that the Authority selected and designated the site from which plaintiff was to take the sand; that plaintiff proceeded to equip the site with necessary machinery for the production of the sand and proceeded to produce sand in accordance with the terms of the contract; that the Authority changed the specifications for the sand and required that a certain amount of fine sand be mixed that the sand to be furnished; that in order to meet the change of specifications, it became necessary for plaintiff to go some distance from its plant to obtain the fine sand and to construct certain buildings for use of machinery, at a cost of $632.47, and to expend $4,708.66 for gasoline and oil for the machinery used, and $26,012.75 for additional employees, $2,879.41 for public liability and workmen's compensation insurance; that plaintiff was required to expend $405 as rental in acquiring leases on land containing the necessary fine sand, and to purchase about $10,318 worth of additional machinery and equipment, and to pay $1,029.52 to the property owner as royalty for the fine sand, and that for supervision of the work and all the items above mentioned, plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial