Ladum v. Utility Cartage, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 37740,37740 |
| Citation | 68 Wn.2d 109,411 P.2d 868 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Larry LADUM, doing business as Sahara Waterproofing Company, Respondent, v. UTILITY CARTAGE, INC., a corporation, Appellant. |
Terhune, Schlosstein, Riveland & Elliott, C. F. Schlosstein, Seattle, for appellant.
Cook, Flanagan & Berst, Robert A. Berst, Seattle, for respondent.
The sole issue raised by this appeal is whether the trial court erred in its determination that the written contract involved was ambiguous. The facts are substantially as follows:
Utility Cartage, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the company), owns a concrete building which had been constructed in two portions. The old portion was built in 1927 (and enlarged in 1946), with concrete mullions 12 inches wide and 8 inches thick, approximately 20 feet apart, which extended perpendicularly from the base of the building to within 1 foot of the top. Superimposed and centered on each mullion was a 4 inch square concrete fin that extended the full length of the mullion. Concrete window sills extended outward from the concrete walls. This portion of the building was finished with stucco. The new portion was constructed in 1956 with similar concrete mullions, but without the concrete fins or protruding decorative concrete window sills, and had a smooth concrete finish.
Over the years, the stucco on the old part of the building had deteriorated and become unsightly, and the company desired to have the stucco, fins, and sills removed, and the building refinished to match the design and finish of the new structure. The company's architect prepared drawings and specifications for this purpose, which were designated as Job No. 160, Drawing Sheet No. A--1.
Mr. J. W. Brooke, president of the company, requested Larry Ladum, doing business as Sahara Waterproofing Company (hereinafter referred to as Ladum), to submit a bid upon the proposed demolition and repair work.
December 9, 1960, after considering the drawings and specifications prepared by the architect, Ladum submitted an itemized bid which detailed the 'Scope of the work' and the cost as follows:
Note installation of concrete block and the wall finish will be submitted after a
Note review of the wall area. (Italics ours.)
The work encompassed in items B and D, supra, was detailed in the bid as follows:
B. Removal of Mullion
Area: As stated above.
1. Remove mullions with jack hammers and chipping guns slightly concave to the wall contour.
2. Precautions to be taken as outlined in 'A' above.
D. Repair to Mullions
Area: As stated above.
1. After cutting mullions slightly concave, wire brush with power tools to remove loose and foreign material.
2. Prime areas to be worked with bonding agent to insure proper adhesion to the surface.
3. Apply a well balanced, non-shrink waterproof concrete mortar material built up to match the existing contours of the wall.
4. After initial set, sack out to produce a smooth uniform finish, feathered into the adjacent surfaces.
5. Tool areas neatly and cure as necessary.
Subsequently, the architect prepared a second drawing, also designated as Job No. 160. Sheet No. A--1, which, in addition to the drawings showing the details of the demolition work on the south and west elevations, contained the following specifications pertinent to this review:
No. 2. Demolition
Remove all cement stucco on west & south elevations by approved practices, using chipping tools & hammers.
Remove all conc. fins on horizontal structural spandrel beams and on vertical mullions.
Vertical mullions between window to remain in place to receive future conc. filler walls.
Cut concave recess into face of spandrels & mullions to receive finish. See detail of mullions.
Repair all damage to exist. mullions incident to this work.
Window sills. Remove projections & finish flush with wall. Cut back into sill ledge 3 to 6 or as required. Build forms & cast new conc. sills flush with walls. After mortar sets remove forms & finish to wall contours.
No. 3. Repairs & finishing.
After cutting conc. surfaces, wire brush with power tools & remove all loose & foreign materials.
Prime areas to be worked with approved agents to insure proper adhesion to the surface.
Apply a well balanced, non-shrink waterproof conc. mortar material built up to match existing contours.
After initial set, sack out to produce a smooth uniform finish, feathered into adjacent surfaces.
Tool areas neatly and cure as necessary.
December 19, 1960, the company entered into a written contract with Ladum for the 'Maintenance and Repair to Exterior of Concrete Building as shown on the drawings and described in the specifications' prepared by the architect (Job No. 160, Sheet No. A--1), for which work the company agreed to pay Ladum the sum of $6,283.
During the demolition, Ladum performed additional work at an agreed price of $265. The total cost of the demolition, including tax, was $6,809.92.
March 28, 1961, Ladum's work on the building had progressed sufficiently to enable him to submit his proposal for the cost of refinishing the entire wall area of the old building. In conformity with a request from the company, Ladum also included in his bid the cost for additional work consisting of the removal of 29 windows from the old structure, filling in the window spaces with concrete, and finishing the repaired window spaces with gunite.
Ladum's bid was rejected by the company. The contract for removal of the windows and guniting the repaired window spaces was awarded to Bartrand Construction Company for $3,216. The guniting portion of this contract was sublet to Ladum.
During the course of the work on the demolition contract, the company paid Ladum the sum of $3,120. June 30, 1961, Ladum completed the demolition portion of his contract. September 1, October 3, November 2, and December 5, 1961 Ladum billed the company for the balance due on the contract. Thereafter, the company paid Ladum $2,600, leaving a balance of $1,089.92.
After completing the demolition work, and the guniting required under the Bartrand subcontract, Ladum applied gunite to the entire wall area of the old building. This finish did not meet with the approval of the company, and thereafter Ladum covered the walls of the old building with two coats of concrete plaster, as directed by the company.
When the company refused to pay the balance due on the written demolition contract, and for the refinishing of the entire old portion of the building with gunite and 2 coats of plaster, Ladum filed a labor and materialman's lien upon the property in the sum of $9,059.11. Ladum commenced this action to foreclose the lien and recover the amount due.
The company answered the complaint, alleging that the written contract encompassed the demolition and the refinishing of the building for the sum of $6,283, plus $265 for additional work, and, by cross-complaint, alleged that the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner, to its damage in the sum of $11,414.36.
The cause was tried to the court, which determined that the written contract was for the removal of the stucco, fins, sills, and repair to the sills and mullions of the building; that the parties had entered into an oral agreement for the refinishing work, and that a reasonable award for the refinishing work was $7,874.67.
From the judgment in favor of Ladum in the sum of $8,223.95, the company has appealed.
The company's first assignment of error is that the court erred in entering judgment against the company and in favor of Ladum.
The trial court entered findings of fact as follows:
That plaintiff (Ladum) and defendant (company) entered into a contract for the removal of the stucco, the removal of the fins from the mullions and repair to the mullions, removal of the trim upon the sills and repair to the sills. That said contract consisted of three documents, a proposal submitted by plaintiff dated December 9, 1960, Exhibit 3, the agreement and general conditions dated December 19, 1960, Exhibit 2, and the plans and specifications dated December 19, 1960, Exhibit 5. That the agreement and general conditions, and plans and specifications, when considered separate and apart from the proposal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labor Ready v. Abis
...General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. C-3 Assocs., 32 Wash. App. 550, 648 P.2d 491, 493 (1982) (citing Ladum v. Utility Cartage, Inc., 68 Wash.2d 109, 411 P.2d 868 (1966)); accord Langston v. Langston, 136 Md.App. 203, 226, 764 A.2d 378 (2000) (citing Calomiris v. Woods, 353 Md. 425, 4......
-
Turner v. OFFICERS, DIR. & EMP. OF MID VALLEY BANK
...178 (1980). The determination of whether a written instrument is ambiguous is a question of law for the court, Ladum v. Utility Cartage, Inc., 68 Wash.2d 109, 411 P.2d 868 (1966), as is the interpretation to be given the instrument once ambiguity is found, In re Estate of Larson, 71 Wash.2d......
-
Baker v. City of Seatac
...of these interpretations are plausible, the court finds that the Handbook's provision is ambiguous. See Ladum v. Util. Cartage, Inc., 68 Wash.2d 109, 411 P.2d 868, 872–73 (1966) (defining “ambiguous” as “capable of being understood in either of two or more possible senses” and as “an uncert......
-
Development Services of America, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 66653-9
... ... The essence of their testimony went to the utility of the helicopter as a tool to maximize corporate efficiency. As to the specific lack of a rooftop ... Ladum [v. Utility Cartage, Inc., 68 Wash.2d ... Page 400 ... 109, 411 P.2d 868 (1966) ] at 116, ... ...