Home/D. Alaska/Alcan Pacific Co. v. Mauk Seattle Lumber Co.

Alcan Pacific Co. v. Mauk Seattle Lumber Co.

302 F. Supp. 606, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7932
CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedJuly 22, 1966
DocketCiv. No. F-32-62
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 302 F. Supp. 606 (Alcan Pacific Co. v. Mauk Seattle Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alcan Pacific Co. v. Mauk Seattle Lumber Co., 302 F. Supp. 606, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7932 (D. Alaska 1966).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

PLUMMER, Chief Judge.

"This action- having been tried before the court without a jury, and the court having duly considered the evidence and being fully advised in the premises, makes and enters the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Alaska and at all times relevant hereto was and is doing business in the State of Alaska. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington.

2. On April 12, 1961, plaintiff was awarded a contract by the Corps of Engineers, United States of America, for the construction of certain family quarters at Fort Greely, Alaska, designated Contract No. DA-95-507-ENG — 1544, hereinafter referred to as Contract 1544. The work was to be performed for a total sum of $1,964,503.00, and contemplated construction of eight (8) separate buildings and an addition to one building.

3. Defendant accepted and undertook to deliver to plaintiff substantially all of the lumber requirements for Contract 1544.

4. One item of the lumber requirements was Type II % inch grooved siding, 1,860 pieces, at a price of $6,249.60. Defendant, when it accepted the order for Type II plywood, was fully cognizant of the contract specifications pertaining thereto. The present controversy involves only Type II plywood siding and when used herein the word “plywood” refers to Type II plywood siding.

5. On May 26 or 27, 1961, 1,860 panels of plywood arrived at the job site. On July 1, 1961, after plaintiff had be[607]*607gun installing the plywood, plaintiff was advised by a field memorandum from the project engineer that all exterior plywood that did not comply with contract specifications would have to be removed and replaced by exterior siding that did meet specifications. Plaintiff ignored the project engineer’s field memo and continued to apply siding that did not meet specification requirements.

6. On July 3, 1961, plaintiff was advised in writing by the resident engineer that the exterior plywood was not acceptable; that all costs incurred by replacement of any and all plywood would be borne by plaintiff; and the fact that the siding would have to be replaced would not in any way allow plaintiff an extension of time on the contract.

7. Despite these warnings, plaintiff proceeded to apply siding to the buildings as follows:

Bldg. 846 — July 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,17 and 18.

Bldg. 847 — July 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Bldg. 848 — July 1, 3, 6, 7 and 10.

8. As a result of the defective plywood contained in this first shipment, a settlement was reached whereby defendant allowed plaintiff a credit of $2,000.00 to cover application and removal of the below grade plywood and for reloading and sorting the other material that was on hand. In addition, the defendant agreed to replace the 1300 defective panels with plywood meeting contract specifications.

9. On August 3, 1961, the second shipment of plywood containing 1,300 sheets arrived at the job site. The Corps of Engineers immediately notified plaintiff at Fort Greely, in writing, that it considered most of the second shipment defective. Arrangements were made to have the plywood graded by a representative of the plywood division of the Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory. This was accomplished on August 8 and 9, 1961.

10. Prior to the second shipment of plywood being graded, plaintiff had accepted and used 402 sheets. Of the remaining 898 sheets graded, 610 were rejected and 288 were accepted as passing specifications. Accordingly, this shipment contained a total of 690 usable sheets.

11. On August 23, 1961, the third shipment of plywood containing 610 sheets arrived at the job site. Of this number, 385 sheets were usable and 225 had to be rejected.

12. On September 23, 1961, the fourth shipment of plywood containing 225 sheets of usable plywood arrived at the job site and was used to close in Building 821 and the above-ground manholes.

13. The number of sheets of plywood required to close in the buildings were as follows:

Building Number Sheets per building Sub-total
846 150
847 188 338
848 150 488
855 300 788
875 260 1048
876 260 1308
877 260 1568
821 254 1822
Total 1822

14. The number of usable sheets of plywood on hand from time to time is reflected below as follows:

Number of sheets per shipment Defective Good Sub-total of good sheets
1st shipment — 1860 1300 556 556
8-3-61 — 1300 610 690 1246
8- 23-61 — 610 225 385 1631
9- 23-61 — 225 225 1856

[608]*60815. The total number of sheets required to close in buildings 846, 847 and 848, totalled 488. From the latter part of May, 1961, there were 556 sheets of usable plywood on the job site.

16. The number of sheets of plywood required to close in buildings 846, 847, 848, 855 and 875 was 1,048. From August 3rd on there were 1,246 sheets of usable plywood on the job. The number of sheets of plywood required to close in all buildings, with the exception of building 821, was 1,568. From August 23, 1961, on there were 1,631 sheets of usable plywood on the job.

17. The buildings were closed in on approximately the following dates:

Building Number Date closed in
848 August 9
847 August 30
846 August 31
855 September 5
'
877 September 6
876 September 9
875 September 13
821 October 7
856 September 9.

The evidence does not establish what delay, if any, lack of available suitable plywood may have caused plaintiff.

18. During the performance of Contract 1544 daily report sheets were kept for the purpose of keeping the home office informed as to how the job was progressing and what was taking place. Such reports were usually made at the end of the day and briefly covered the operations on the job. The job engineer would go around and observe what was taking place and put this type of information on the report. Such things as job hindrances or delays were noted in the daily report.

19. The daily report sheets were written by the job engineers who were more familiar with what was being done on the job than was Mr. Billimek. From June 13 to August 18, 1961, the daily report sheets were signed by Ted Thoresen. From August 22, 1961, to January 16, 1962, they were signed by Stanley Brust. These persons were not called as witnesses at the trial.

20. The daily report sheets kept by plaintiff’s employees were made prior to litigation and contemporaneously with the performance of the contract.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mauk Seattle Lumber Co. v. Alcan Pacific Co.
414 F.2d 832 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)
Mauk Seattle Lumber Co. v. Alcan Pacific Co., Alcan Pacific Co. v. Mauk Seattle Lumber Co.
414 F.2d 832 (Ninth Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
302 F. Supp. 606, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcan-pacific-co-v-mauk-seattle-lumber-co-akd-1966.