This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Public Works

K.C. Equipment Inc. v. City of Escondido

Published: Jul. 27, 2004 | Result Date: Oct. 8, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: GIN023342 Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Joel M. Pressman

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Henry Harmeling


Defendant

Susan D. Ryan


Facts

Plaintiff K.C. Equipment Inc. sued the city of Escondido for breach of a public works contract. The plaintiff claimed that the city owed it $36,320 for performing extra work under a contract to chip seal approximately 4.6 million square feet of streets within the city. The plaintiff asserted that the actual quantity of materials exceeded the city's estimate, and that the city required it to perform additional street sweeping operations that the contract did not contemplate. The city maintained that the plaintiff had been fully paid the contract price for all materials used and that all street sweeping was required by the contract. The city argued that any damages were the result of the plaintiff's failure to timely finish its work.

Settlement Discussions

According to the city, the plaintiff demanded $36,320. The city offered $7,500 in mediation.

Damages

According to the city, the plaintiff claimed $36,320 additional compensation.

Other Information

According to the city, the court found that the plaintiff was not due additional compensation for using more than the estimated quantity of materials because it never sought a change order from the city before using those additional materials, as the contract required. Further, the plaintiff erroneously calculated the cost of the additional materials by factoring in costs unrelated with the materials. The court also determined that the contract contained clean-up provisions, including street sweeping. There was no fixed number of street sweepings to be performed. Since the plaintiff did not finish the work on time, it was therefore required to continue street sweeping.


#81332

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390