Opinion No. 69-226 (1969) Ag
Opinion
Contracts — Penalties — State Immunity The University of Oklahoma may not, in the absence of express statutory authority, place a provision, to-wit: "This Paragraph 8.3 does not exclude the recovery of damages for delay by either party under over provisions of the contract documents," in its construction contracts which would purport to waive its immunity to civil suit for damages. The Attorney General has had under consideration your request for an opinion wherein you state that the University of Oklahoma has issued invitations to bid on construction projects, and that said invitations to bid contain the following provision: "8.3.4 The Contractor shall not be entitled to compensation from the Owner for any loss, cost or expense, sustained by reason of delay of completion of the work or from any cause whatsoever." You also state that the bidders' conditions demanded that the University replace said provision with the following provision: "8.3.4 This Paragraph 8.3 does not exclude the recovery of damages for delay by either party under other provisions of the contract documents." You then ask the following question: ". . . Can the University of Oklahoma place such a provision as requested in its construction contracts?" In the first paragraph of the syllabus of Hawks v. Walsh, 177 Okl. 564,61 P.2d 1109 (1936), the Court held: "A sovereign state cannot be sued except by its consent granted by express legislative enactment." Our Court in the body of the opinion of Jack v. State,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion No. 69-226 (1969) Ag (Opinion No. 69-226 (1969) Ag) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.