Contract and Additional Work
Gary Porter Construction v. Fox Construction, Inc., 2004 Ut.App. 354, 101 p.3d 371 (2004).
Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a women’s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction. Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740. The additional work completed at Fox’s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract.
Procedure: A suit was filed by Gary Porter in the Utah State Court against Fox with alleging breech of an implied-in-fact contract. The court granted summary judgment for Porter, which Fox later appealed to a state intermediate court.
Issue: If sections of a contract are left out by mistake, is the contract still valid and enforceable? Were all the requirements of an implied-in-fact contract met?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower courts summary judgment in favor of Porter. Fox knew that the additional work that Porter did would be followed up with an additional charge. Fox should have known that there would have been additional costs for the work outside of the planned procedure. Porter completed the work only after Fox’s manager requested it and it was implied to be additional from the start. The additional work not planned in the subcontract was valued at $161,309.08 as well as the $135,441.62 contacted value. The issue of the sections being mistakenly not represented in the contract is voided because Fox did not inform Porter about what all needed to be included.
Decision and Remedy: Gary Porter Construction won against Fox Construction, Inc. Fox was ordered to pay Porter the balance of $161,309.08 for the work done but was excluded in
Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a women’s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction. Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740. The additional work completed at Fox’s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract.
Procedure: A suit was filed by Gary Porter in the Utah State Court against Fox with alleging breech of an implied-in-fact contract. The court granted summary judgment for Porter, which Fox later appealed to a state intermediate court.
Issue: If sections of a contract are left out by mistake, is the contract still valid and enforceable? Were all the requirements of an implied-in-fact contract met?
Holding: Yes
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower courts summary judgment in favor of Porter. Fox knew that the additional work that Porter did would be followed up with an additional charge. Fox should have known that there would have been additional costs for the work outside of the planned procedure. Porter completed the work only after Fox’s manager requested it and it was implied to be additional from the start. The additional work not planned in the subcontract was valued at $161,309.08 as well as the $135,441.62 contacted value. The issue of the sections being mistakenly not represented in the contract is voided because Fox did not inform Porter about what all needed to be included.
Decision and Remedy: Gary Porter Construction won against Fox Construction, Inc. Fox was ordered to pay Porter the balance of $161,309.08 for the work done but was excluded in