Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority
| Decision Date | 26 June 1968 |
| Citation | 244 A.2d 277 |
| Parties | RUCKMAN AND HANSEN, INC., an Indiana corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. The DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY, a body politic, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
H. James Conaway of Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, for appellant.
James L. Latchum of Potter, Anderson & Carroon, Wilmington, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of appellant's second cause of action for breach of contract. * The second cause of action alleges that various actions of the Delaware River and Bay Authority (Authority) and its Director were breaches of Contract No. 107B between it and Ruckman and Hansen, Inc. (Ruckman) which greatly increased Ruckman's costs to the extent of $1,672,141.
As a result of competitive bidding, Ruckman was the successful bidder for the construction of five piers of the Twin Delaware Memorial Bridge at a total contract price of $1,383,250. The invitation to bid and the instructions to bidders included the design, specifications, plans and requirements for the job. Ruckman's bid was based upon these.
It is alleged that upon commencing work Ruckman immediately encountered difficulty with the plans, specifications and requirements of the Authority. Allegedly, the job could not be performed in accordance with them. Ruckman accordingly, of necessity, had to redesign portions of the job at its own expense. Likewise, it is charged that numberous drastic changes were made in the job by the Authority, all of which greatly increased Ruckman's costs in an amount almost equal to the amount of the original contract price.
Contract No. 107B contained, Inter alia, Standard Specification 1.5.1, which is as follows:
Pursuant to 1.5.1, Ruckman submitted to the Director of the Authority for decision all the claims which form the basis for its second cause of action. Ruckman, represented by counsel, appeared at extensive hearings before the Director and presented its claims. The Director rendered a written decision awarding $137,586.16 of the $1,672,141 requested by Ruckman.
Ruckman argues: (1) That the Authority's plans and specifications should be sufficient for the purpose and when they turn out not to be, or are changed by the Authority, a breach of warranty results which may not be determined by the Director; (2) that the magnitude of the many...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauntt Const. Company/Lott Elec. Co. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority
...courts have long implicitly, if not explicitly, upheld the validity of clauses similar to it. See Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River & Bay Authority, Del.Supr., 244 A.2d 277 (1968); Wilson Contracting Co. v. State, Del.Supr., 224 A.2d 396 (1966); Kuhn Construction Company v. State, De......
-
Mendelson v. Delaware River & Bay Authority
...For these reasons, the court will not allow Hansen to renege on this part of its bargain. See Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Auth., 244 A.2d 277, 278 (Del.1968) ("It has long been the law of Delaware that when parties to a contract agree to submit differences arising under......
-
Hanby v. Maryland Cas. Co.
...has not been upheld in Delaware. Those cases must be read in light of this Court's recent decision in Ruckman & Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River & Bay Author., Del.Supr., 244 A.2d 277 (1968), holding that when parties to a contract agree to submit differences under that contract to an arbitra......
-
KUHN CONST. v. Diamond State Port Corp.
...arbitration solely with Kuhn. The Vice Chancellor held that the referee clause present in the dispute arising in Ruckman and Hansen, Inc. v. Delaware River and Bay Authority,1 was almost identical to DSPC's referee clause, therefore, and that Ruckman controlled Kuhn and DSPC's dispute. He t......