9. The radio antenna to be erected by plaintiff consisted, essentially, of three parts: a concrete foundation pedestal on which it was anchored; the steel tower itself which rose approximately 30 feet in the air; and a parabolic aluminum dish on top of the tower, which dish was approximately 50 feet in diameter.
10. Under its contract with the University of Pennsylvania, plaintiff was obliged to supply an antenna which would transmit on a direct line from Valley Forge to Wallups Island.
11. Defendant was informed, prior to entering into the contract with plaintiff referred to above, that plaintiff was erecting an antenna that had to be faced toward Wallups Island, Va. and that defendant's survey was required in order that the foundation for the antenna would be precisely oriented in the proper direction.
12. The parabolic antenna dish on top of the tower could not be rotated or moved from side to side; hence, an error in the orientation/azimuth of the tower meant that transmissions from the antenna in Valley Forge would not hit the receiving antenna on Wallups Island.
13. On or about May 23, 1968, defendant informed plaintiff that defendant had completed the land survey and advised plaintiff that plaintiff could rely on the accuracy of defendant's survey.
14. Specifically, defendant had performed its survey by observation of the star Polaris and had performed mathematical calculations and drawn survey lines, and had placed stakes in the ground where the front two piers of the antenna foundation were to be placed by plaintiff.
15. In reliance upon defendant's placement of the stakes in the ground -- called a base line -- plaintiff dug the holes and made necessary preparations for placement of the concrete foundation pedestal.
16. Thereafter, plaintiff further inquired of defendant as to the accuracy of defendant's survey and, acting in reliance upon defendant's renewed assurances that the survey was accurate in all respects, plaintiff poured the concrete footings, installed the foundation steel, completed the foundation and erected the steel radio tower itself.
17. Thereafter, following a third inquiry of defendant by plaintiff as to the accuracy of defendant's survey -- at a time when the sole remaining construction activity with respect to the tower was placement of the parabolic dish on top of the tower -- defendant resurveyed the orientation of the tower and informed plaintiff that defendant had made a six (6) degree error in its calculation of the orientation azimuth.
18. Defendant has admitted, both in pre-trial discovery, and at trial, its mistake in the survey and the effect of that survey on the orientation of the tower saying for example:
". . . Mr. Conrey will state for the record that Mr. Conrey's engineering firm made an error in locating the base of the tower. There was a 6-degree error in azimuth, so that the tower was not pointed to Wallups Island as it should have been. . . ." (N.T. 8)