Teel v. Cascade-Olympic Const. Co., CASCADE-OLYMPIC
| Decision Date | 09 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | CASCADE-OLYMPIC,No. 38115,38115 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Louise E. TEEL, as Executrix of the Estate of Carl P. Teel, deceased, and Claud V. Stoner, doing business as Claud's Service, Respondents, v.CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellant. |
Parr & Baker, Olympia, for appellant.
Wallace & Fraser, Merrill Wallace, John A. Bishop, Bremerton, for respondents.
The Cascade-Olympic Construction Company was the general contractor for the construction of certain buildings for the Olympic Junior College at Bremerton.
March 5, 1959, Carl P. Teel, doing business as Teel Brothers, and Claud V. Stoner, doing business as Claud's Service, were awarded a subcontract by the general contractor to perform the 'earth work' required by the contract, for the sum of $8,845. Subsequently, Teel and Stoner agreed to do specified extra work for the general contractor for $750.
The subcontract was fully performed, and the sum of $8,845, plus $750 for the extra work, was paid in full by March 8, 1960.
Thereafter, on or about March 14, 1961, Teel and Stoner commenced an action against Cascade-Olympic Construction Company, contending that they had not been paid for certain extra work. December 21, 1961, while the cause was still pending, the attorneys for Teel and Stoner wrote to the attorneys for the general contractor asking, Inter alia, whether a retained percentage had been withheld on the subcontract by the general contractor and, if so, whether it had been paid to Teel and Stoner. The general contractor's attorneys replied that Teel and Stoner had been paid in full.
January 7, 1963, with knowledge of the disputed claim for retained percentage and of the pending action for payment for alleged extra work, the parties entered into a written 'STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT' which provided, Inter alia:
WHEREAS, such parties to the action wish to settle and compromise All claims existing as between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, they do hereby agree that Louise E. Teel, individually and as executrix of the estate of Carl P. Teel, deceased, and Claud V. Stoner, d/b/a Claud's Service for and in consideration of the sum of FIVE HUNDRED ($500.00) DOLLARS, paid by the defendant, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, Do hereby forever release any and all claim against Cascade Olympic Construction Company, the defendant herein, from any and all claims arising out of said contract and/or sub-contract or otherwise, and fully release said defendant. (Italics ours.)
Thereafter, the cause of action commenced on or about March 14, 1961, was dismissed.
March 26, 1964, Louise E. Teel (now Louise E. Howard), as executrix of the estate of Carl P....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ. Spokane, 38784-4-III
...aside, in whole or in part, for such reasons as mutual mistake, illegality, or frustration of purpose. Teel v. Cascade-Olympic Construction Co. , 68 Wash.2d 718, 720, 415 P.2d 73 (1966) ; Paopao v. Department of Social & Health Services , 145 Wash. App. 40, 46, 185 P.3d 640 (2008). Thus, ac......
-
Paopao v. State, Dshs
...mutual mistake, supervening illegality, or frustration of purpose. 1 Am.Jur.2d 812, Actions, § 24 (2005); Teel v. Cascade-Olympic Constr. Co., 68 Wash.2d 718, 720, 415 P.2d 73 (1966). ¶ 11 We agree with DSHS that the parties reached an accord and satisfaction. The initial lien asserted by D......
-
Eagle Ins. Co. v. Albright
...instruction on accord and satisfaction. Accord and satisfaction is based upon the law of contract. Teel v. Cascade-Olympic Construction Co., 68 Wash.2d 718, 415 P.2d 73 (1966). For an accord and satisfaction to be binding and thus discharge the earlier obligation, there must be a bona fide ......
-
Maxwell's Elec., Inc. v. Hegeman-Harris Co. of Canada, Ltd.
...building 38.) There is no evidence that the figure in exhibit No. 11K is a compromise of a disputed claim. Teel v. Cascade-Olympic Constr. Co., 68 Wash.2d 718, 415 P.2d 73 (1966); Eagle Ins. Co. v. Albright, 3 Wash.App. 256, 474 P.2d 920 (1970). Therefore, appellants claim that, at least, e......