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.

DICK CORPORATION v. STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY (11/01/76)

decided: November 1, 1976.

DICK CORPORATION, APPELLANT
v.
STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDING AUTHORITY, APPELLEE



Appeal from an Order of the Board of Arbitration of Claims in case of Dick Corporation v. State Public School Building Authority, Docket No. 365.

COUNSEL

Jack W. Plowman, with him Plowman and Spiegel, for appellant.

James R. Clippinger, with him Richard L. Kearns, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 499]

The Dick Corporation (appellant) has appealed from an order of the Board of Arbitration of Claims (Board) which granted partial relief to the appellant on its claim for damages under a contract with the State Public School Building Authority (Authority).

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 500]

Our scope of review here is limited and we will affirm an order of the Board unless it is not in accordance with the law or the findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence. Department of Page 500} Transportation v. Acchioni and Canuso, Inc., 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 596, 324 A.2d 828 (1974).

This appeal presents a single question of law: Where a contract between a contractor and a public agency provides that all contract deviations must be authorized in writing before the work is performed, may a contractor refuse to proceed with additional work absent the written authorization of this deviation?

The Board held that, where the solution to a particular problem had been agreed upon, the contractor was required to implement the solution, which here required extra work, even in the absence of the written authorization of a deviation, and thereby mitigate damages.*fn1 We disagree and, therefore, reverse the Board.

It is a well-established rule of law that where, by the terms of a contract with a governmental body, written orders for additional work are required, the contractor cannot recover for extra work without compliance with the contractual provisions. Montgomery v. Philadelphia, 391 Pa. 607, 139 A.2d 347 (1958); Burke v. Allegheny County, 336 Pa. 411, 9 A.2d 396 (1939); Morgan v. Johnstown, 306 Pa. 456, 160 A. 696 (1931). And we have so held. Security Painting Co. v. Commonwealth, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 507, 357 A.2d 251 (1976); see Acchioni and Canuso, supra, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 599, 324 A.2d at 830. The basic rationale behind this rule is that such provisions prevent fraudulent and exorbitant claims for compensation for extra work and additional costs. 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Public Works and Contracts, ยง 190.

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 501]

We believe that where, as here, written authorization from the contracting governmental authority is required before the contractor can recover for additional work performed, the contractor is not required to perform such work absent the required authorization. Strict adherence to the contract provision involved here must apply equally to both parties. The contractor, by refusing to perform, took the only logical action available to him*fn2 and he is ...


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.