Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FRAMLAU CORPORATION v. UPPER DUBLIN SCHOOL AUTHORITY BOARD (09/21/71)

decided: September 21, 1971.

FRAMLAU CORPORATION
v.
UPPER DUBLIN SCHOOL AUTHORITY BOARD, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 69-13760, in case of Framlau Corporation v. Upper Dublin School Authority Board.

COUNSEL

Charles C. Hileman, with him Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for appellant.

Richard S. Mailman, with him Fine & Mailman, for appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. (Hoffman, J., absent.) Opinion by Spaulding, J.

Author: Spaulding

[ 219 Pa. Super. Page 370]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, en banc, setting aside an arbitration award in favor of appellant Upper Dublin School Authority Board and remanding the case to the arbitrators for determination of the amount due to be paid Framlau Corporation, appellee, for certain brickwork performed by appellee.

A dispute originated over a clause (referred to as Alternate No. 4) in a school construction contract between the two parties.*fn1 Appellee claims that this clause

[ 219 Pa. Super. Page 371]

    required him to substitute brick for concrete block only on certain portions of the interior of the building. Appellant maintains that the contract was to brick the entire exterior of the building as well as certain portions of the interior. The disagreement arose before the brickwork was begun, but appellee completed the building according to appellant's interpretation. Appellee then submitted its claim to a three-man arbitration board which denied in its entirety appellee's claim for an additional $191,000.*fn2 Appellee petitioned the Court of Common Pleas to modify or correct the award. After a review the en banc court held that since each side had a different interpretation of Alternate No. 4 the contract failed for lack of mutual assent and that since the School Authority was unjustly enriched, the contractor was entitled to an additional amount to be determined by the arbitrators.

We think that the court below erroneously substituted its judgment for that of the arbitrators and that their decision must be reinstated.

The proper scope of judicial review of arbitrators' findings is governed by Section 11 of the Arbitration Act of 1927:

"In either of the following cases the court shall make an order modifying or correcting the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration: . . .

(d) Where the award is against the law, and is such that had it been a verdict of the jury the court would have entered different or other ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.