Duffy v. City of Port Washington, Wis

214 F.2d 28, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2653
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJune 8, 1954
Docket11026
StatusPublished

This text of 214 F.2d 28 (Duffy v. City of Port Washington, Wis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duffy v. City of Port Washington, Wis, 214 F.2d 28, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2653 (7th Cir. 1954).

Opinion

SWAIM, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, who are contractors doing business as the Joseph J. Duffy Company, in an action against the City of Port Washington, Wisconsin. The action was filed to recover a balance of $4,255.10 alleged to be due plaintiffs for services performed and materials furnished in the construction of a filter plant for the City pursuant tJo a written contract.

The contract was prepared by a firm of engineers representing the City and contains 31 Contract Items. The first seven Items were to be paid for on a unit price basis, that is, so much per unit of material or work required, the total cost of each Item depending on the number of units involved as determined after completion of the work. The remaining 24 Items were to be paid for on a lump sum basis, the price for each being determined in advance by the amount of the contractor’s lump sum bid on that Item which the City, by its acceptance of the bid and execution of the contract, agreed to pay.

The question here relates to the method of payment provided by the contract for work designated as “Roof Fill” and “Cement Floor Finish.” The plaintiffs contend that those subitems of work were meant to be compensated for on a unit price basis, as Class D Concrete, under Contract Item 5; and this action to recover payment was brought on that theory.

It is the City’s position that under the contract the cost of that work was included in the plaintiff’s lump sum bid on Contract Item 30, and that the City’s obligation has been discharged in full by payment of the agreed lump sum amount for Item 30.

Those portions of Contract Item 30 pertinent here are as follows:

“Contract Item 30 Architectural
“Description
“D-30.1 Under Contract Item 30, the Contractor shall furnish, construct, and fully complete the architectural work for the superstructure of the Filter Plant, as shown, specified and directed.
“The following items of work are included, under this Contract Item:
*30 Page
Masonry and Mortar Materials.... D-81 Brick Masonry and
Tile ..............D-83
Brick Masonry and Tile — Workmanship ............. D-84
Cut Stone ......... D-87
Pre-Cast Stone ... D-88
Marble ............ D-89
Carpentry ......... D-92
Wood Overhead
Doors ............ D-92
Hollow Metal
Doors ........... D-93
Steel Windows..,. D-95 Glass and Glazing D-97
Caulking ......... D-98
Waterproofing
Course ........... D-98
Roof Fill .......... D-99
Page
Roofing ........... D-100
Cement Floor
Finish .......... D-102
Linoleum ........ D-103
Ceramic and Quarry Tile.... D-104 Furring and
Lathing ........ D-106
Plastering ........ D-107
Sheet Metal
Work ........... D-109
Ornamental and
Light Iron...... D-110
Lockers and
Bench .......... D-lll
Lightning Protective System..... D-lll
Hardware ........ D-112
Plumbing ........ D-115
Heating .......... D-119
Freight Elevator D-127 D-135
“The following related items of work are not included under this Contract Item: concrete, steel reinforcement, structural steel, crane rails, gratings, supports, rubbed finish, miscellaneous steel and wrought iron, and miscellaneous iron castings. [Our emphasis.] * * *»

It will be noted that opposite each subitem named as being included in Contract Item 30 there is shown the number of the page of the Contract where the exact specifications for that item are given. So, turning to page D-99 of the Contract we find the following detailed specifications for Roof Fill:

“Roof Fill
“Light Weight Concrete
“D-30.37 The light weight concrete roof fill shall be composed of one part of Portland cement, three parts of sand, and six parts of an approved light weight aggregate by volume. The thickness of the fill shall be varied to meet the finished elevation lines as shown, so that all roofing will pitch toward drains, allowing no low spots that will hold water.
“Concrete surfaces shall be thoroughly cleaned and then brushed with a cement grout just prior to placing fill. The fill shall be accurately placed and graded, firmly tamped to produce a solid dense concrete, and then screed coated with a %-inch thick mortar coat, consisting of one part of Portland cement and 3 parts of sand. The screed coat shall be accurately floated to a smooth, even surface without ridges or indentations.
“At the intersection of the roof fill and the parapet walls, a y%-inch preformed mastic expansion joint shall be provided.
“Nailing Concrete
“D-30.38 The roof cants and slabs, where shown, shall be covered with nailing concrete similar and equal to that manufactured by the Nailcrete Corp., ‘Nailbond’ composition manufactured by the National Naylegrip Co., or ‘Porete Nailfill’ as manufactured by the Porete Mfg. Co. The nailing concrete shall be mixed, applied, and worked in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and instructions.”
For the exact detailed specifications for Cement Floor Finish required by Item 30 we are referred to page D-102 where this subitem is described as follows:
“Cement Floor Finish
“General
“D-30.44 A non-integral cement floor finish shall be furnished and placed on certain floors as shown and specified. Cement finish on level floors shall be 2 inches thick. All floors shall pitch to drains when shown or specified. Mineral coloring matter of an approved type shall be added top yz-inch.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
214 F.2d 28, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffy-v-city-of-port-washington-wis-ca7-1954.