The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEWCOMER
Newcomer, District Judge.
This case involves an oral contract between plaintiff and defendant which contract required defendant to perform a survey for plaintiff in order that plaintiff could lay a foundation for the erection of a certain parabolic antenna for use by the University of Pennsylvania. An error in the survey caused the direction of the antenna to be off by six (6) degrees requiring plaintiff to expend an additional sum of money to correct the problem. The question as to the amount of said additional expenditure provides us with the subject of this law suit. Accordingly, we make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a):
1. Plaintiff, Edward J. Alex, is an individual citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts trading under the name of E. J. Alex Construction Co.
2. Defendant Henry S. Conrey, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business at 159 Lancaster Avenue, Paoli, Pennsylvania.
3. The amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $10,000 dollars, exclusive of costs.
4. At all times pertinent to this action, plaintiff, Edward J. Alex, t/a E. J. Alex Construction Co., has been engaged in the general contracting business, specializing in steel and concrete work including antennae and antenna foundations.
5. At all times pertinent to this action, defendant Henry S. Conrey, Inc., has been a registered land surveying firm with Henry S. Conrey being the licensed professional engineer for the firm, and with the firm being engaged in the business of performing land surveys.
6. On or about April 30, 1968, plaintiff entered into an oral contract with defendant whereby defendant was to perform a land survey at a site in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania to provide the azimuth direction of a radio tower to be erected at the site by plaintiff pursuant to plaintiff's contract with the University of Pennsylvania.
7. The purpose of the survey to be performed by defendant pursuant to the oral contract referred to in the preceding finding of fact was to provide precise orientation (azimuth) in a true north-south direction for the parabolic transmitting antenna to be erected by plaintiff so that transmissions from the antenna in Valley Forge would hit a receiving antenna located on Wallups Island, Virginia.
8. Plaintiff has performed all conditions required of him necessary to permit defendant to perform its obligations under the oral contract previously referred to.
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 ...