Archive:January 2007

Golomore Assoc. v. N.J. State Highway Auth., 413 A.2d 361, 173 N.J. Super. 55 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1980)

In this case, the court evaluated a claim by a contractor and subcontractor against the State for additional costs of construction. Plaintiffs claimed that the increased costs were due to faulty evaluations of ground elevation provided by the State prior to bidding. The bid submitted to the State was calculated using those faulty measurements and therefore did not adequately predict actual expenses. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the elevations provided by the State constituted positive averments. Therefore, when the elevation data was shown to be incorrect, contractors were entitled to recover for additional costs.
 

Buckley & Co. v. State, 356 A.2d 56, 140 N.J. Super. 289 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1975)

In this case, the court adjudicated a claim by two construction companies against the State regarding the construction of Route 78.  The project, namely the creation of a section of the road that involved various bridge constructions as well as electrical, drainage and related work, was finished 87 days later than was provided in the contract and various change orders and 564 days later than the original completion date.  Consequently, the contractors filed suit for delay damages which included various overhead expenses and wages for employees.  The contractors also sought the return of monies withheld by the Department of Transportation as “liquidated damages” for the delay.  The State contended that the delays were the contractors’ fault, that the reasons for the delays given by the contractors did not occur, and that claims for costs were barred by no-damages clauses included in the contract.  The court, concluding that some of plaintiff’s losses were the result of breach by the State, allowed recovery for those losses accordingly.  The court declined to allow the State to withhold liquidated damages where the delay could be attributed actions and inaction by both parties as well as circumstances beyond either party’s control.  The court also held that the construction company had standing to assert claims on behalf of subcontractors.
 

Totten v. Gruzen, 245 A.2d 1, 52 N.J. 202 (1968)

In this case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the “completed and accepted” rule does not render defendants immune from liability for injuries sustained from a faulty heating system.  A child resident of a multi-family housing project sustained serious burns from contact with exposed, hot piping that was part of the radiator heating system in the child’s bedroom.  The court found that the lack of privity between the plaintiffs and the defendants was insufficient to excuse the defendants from liability.
 

Home Owners Const. Co. v. Borough of Glen Rock, 169 A.2d 129, 34 N.J. 305 (1961)

In this case, the court looked at whether a contractor could recover in quantum meruit for services and materials actually provided, even though the work was not authorized in writing.  During the course of construction, the Borough requested the contractor to perform certain extra services and provide additional materials.  Upon the Borough’s refusal to pay these additional expenses, the contractor sought to recover in quantum meruit.  The court found that the lack of writing authorizing these changes did not preclude the contractor from recovery.