City of Hazard v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

City of Hazard v. Hall

346 S.W.2d 726, 1961 Ky. LEXIS 323

DecidedApril 28, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 346 S.W.2d 726 (City of Hazard v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Hazard v. Hall, 346 S.W.2d 726, 1961 Ky. LEXIS 323 (Ky. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellee Hall is a contractor who constructed a water plant for appellant City of Hazard. The work was satisfactorily-completed and paid for'by the city except for an item of $3,736. Hall sought recovery of this amount and the trial judge, trying-the case without a jury, found for Hall.

The original contract price was $398,-000. Some extra work was required, for which the city agreed to pay the sum of $29,500.

Two items of work in the original specifications were omitted by agreement, the contract price thereof being $3,736, the amount in controversy. As testified to by appellee Hall and the consulting engineer (who was the agent of the city in the overall supervision of the work), and supported by letters with respect thereto, this item of $3,736 (the contract price for omitted items) was deducted from the cost of the extra work when Hall agreed to perform it for $29,500. (Otherwise the figure would have been $33,236.) It is the city’s contention that this item should not have been deducted in the calculations for the cost of the extra work, and that the city’s total indebtedness (which was paid) was $398,-000 plus $29,500, less $3,736.

The trial court accepted the method of' computation agreed to between Hall and the-consulting engineer, which allowed credit for this $3,736 item in fixing the net cost of extra items at $29,500, and determined the city was not entitled to deduct it from the original contract price. This decision is-amply supported by the record. We cannot set it aside on the theory that the newly elected and appointed city officials, who lacked familiarity with this entire enterprise- and were not engineers, may have misunderstood the method by which the total cost off the project was determined.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

CLAY, Commissioner.

Appellee Hall is a contractor who constructed a water plant for appellant City of Hazard. The work was satisfactorily-completed and paid for'by the city except for an item of $3,736. Hall sought recovery of this amount and the trial judge, trying-the case without a jury, found for Hall.

The original contract price was $398,-000. Some extra work was required, for which the city agreed to pay the sum of $29,500.

Two items of work in the original specifications were omitted by agreement, the contract price thereof being $3,736, the amount in controversy. As testified to by appellee Hall and the consulting engineer (who was the agent of the city in the overall supervision of the work), and supported by letters with respect thereto, this item of $3,736 (the contract price for omitted items) was deducted from the cost of the extra work when Hall agreed to perform it for $29,500. (Otherwise the figure would have been $33,236.) It is the city’s contention that this item should not have been deducted in the calculations for the cost of the extra work, and that the city’s total indebtedness (which was paid) was $398,-000 plus $29,500, less $3,736.

The trial court accepted the method of' computation agreed to between Hall and the-consulting engineer, which allowed credit for this $3,736 item in fixing the net cost of extra items at $29,500, and determined the city was not entitled to deduct it from the original contract price. This decision is-amply supported by the record. We cannot set it aside on the theory that the newly elected and appointed city officials, who lacked familiarity with this entire enterprise- and were not engineers, may have misunderstood the method by which the total cost off the project was determined.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 S.W.2d 726, 1961 Ky. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-hazard-v-hall-kyctapp-1961.