National Wrecking Co. v. City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 21 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 52927 |
| Parties | NATIONAL WRECKING COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Arnstein, Gluck, Weitzenfeld & Minow, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant; Burton Y. Weitzenfeld, Michael R. Turoff, Chicago, of counsel.
Raymond F. Simon, Corp. Counsel, Chicago, for defendant-appellee; Marvin E. Aspen, RocLyne E. La.Porte, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel.
The defendant, City of Chicago (hereinafter referred to as 'City'), solicited bids for the wrecking of some sixty-two buildings as part of an urban renewal project. Plaintiff, National Wrecking Company (hereinafter referred to as 'National'), was the successful bidder and was awarded the contract for the wrecking.
This litigation is an outgrowth of difficulties arising between the parties as to extra work allegedly made necessary by the City's action in stopping on-site burning, thus necessitating extra hauling of debris. Further, National makes claim for the salvage value of plumbing and heating fixtures that allegedly disappeared from the buildings to be wrecked and to which National asserts title.
National filed its complaint for breach of contract and a jury trial resulted in the court directing a verdict for the City. This appeal is from the judgment thus entered in that action. We affirm.
We turn first to the claim for loss of salvage. This loss is asserted by National to be in the total amount of some $4,097.89 for bathtubs, sinks and radiators missing from the buildings to be wrecked.
The contract between the parties provided that National was required to wreck the buildings and fill the basement areas with inorganic debris to ground level. The contract further provided:
That portion of the quoted language that provides that all debris not needed for fill becomes the property of National and shall be hauled away from the site is the basis for the claimed salvage loss. We agree with the determination of the trial court that this language does not create a contractual right in National to any salvage.
Debris and salvageable material are not one and the same. While the quoted language is broad enough to give National title and impose a duty on National to haul away the excess debris, this cannot in any way be interpreted as imposing a contractual duty on the City to see to it that fixtures not be removed by tenants or strangers from the buildings to be wrecked. As we view it, the clear and unambiguous language of the contract compels this result. Rules of construction to aid in ascertaining the intention of the parties are applicable only in the event of the existence of an ambiguity. Such rules are of no utility when there is no ambiguity. The fact that the parties may take divergent views of the contract language does not create an ambiguity. La Salle Nat'l Bank v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc., 60 Ill.App.2d 188, 208 N.E.2d 845 (1st Dist.1965).
Other provisions of the contract clearly establish the intention of the parties as to what would constitute debris and what the obligations of the parties were with reference to it. For instance, debris was not to be allowed to accumulate on roofs or floors, and was to be removed from the site as the work progressed. Debris to be used as fill was to be brick, broken concrete, stone, mortar or similar material removed from the buildings. Material not suitable for fill was to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial