Tag:Idaho

Craig Johnson Constr., L.L.C. v. Floyd Town Architects, P.A., 142 Idaho 797, 134 P.3d 648 (2006)

Town entered into a contract with Dean to prepare plans for condominiums in Ketchum.  Once Dean received the plans, Dean contracted with Johnson to build the condominiums according to Town’s plans.  The condominiums were built in two phases.  In Phase one Johnson deviated from the plans, but did not do so in building phase two.  The first winter the condominiums were completed, ice dams formed on the roofs of individual units in both phases of construction.  All three parties then brought actions against each other for breach of contract, negligence and indemnification. 

At trial, the jury found Johnson to be 90 percent at fault and Town only 10 percent at fault.  The court held that “a public or private contractor following plans and specifications prepared by another party is not liable in negligence where defects in the plans and specifications cause injuries, so long as the contractor should not have reasonably known about the defects.”  The court affirmed the jury’s verdict since there was sufficient evidence in the record to show that Johnson was negligent and failed to follow Town’s plans. 

Boise Jr. Coll. Dist. v. Mattefs Constr. Co., 92 Idaho 757, 450 P.2d 604 (1969)

Mattefs Construction submitted a bid for the construction of a building for Boise Junior College.  The bid contained a clerical error that omitted one item that constituted 14 percent of the bid.  The court held a contractor is entitled to the equitable relief of rescission if he can establish the following conditions:  “(1) the mistake is material; (2) enforcement of a contract pursuant to the terms on an erroneous bid would be unconscionable; (3) the mistake did not result from violation of a positive legal duty or culpable negligence; (4) the party to whom the bid is submitted will not be prejudiced except by loss of his bargain; and (5) prompt notice of the error is given.”  The court concluded that the clerical error in submitting a bid, which was 14 percent of the total bid, was substantial and material and did not result from culpable negligence.  The court further found that Boise Junior College would not suffer a substantial hardship since Mattefs informed them of the error before they had attempted to accept the offer.  The court did note that not all mistakes entitle a bidder to withdraw his bid, but distinguished this case on the basis that this was a clerical error and not an error in judgment, such as underestimating cost or labor.  Since the court found Mattefs satisfied all five factors, equity required the bid to be withdrawn without forfeiting the bid bond. 

Puget Sound Nat’l Bank v. C. B. Lauch Constr. Co., 73 Idaho 68, 245 P.2d 800 (1952)

Saxon Painting entered into a contract with Lauch Construction to do all of the painting for a government housing project.  The contract required Saxon to apply two coats of a certain type of paint, which was provided by Lauch.  Saxon followed the specifications in the contract and completed the painting in a timely manner without any objections to the work from Lauch.  Saxon alleged that he was still owed $19,958 from the contract and three months after completing the work, a lawsuit was commenced.

Read More

Steltz v. Armory, 15 Idaho 551, 99 P. 98 (1908)

Steltz contracted with Armory for the construction of a building in the city of Genesee.  The building was erected and Armory moved in and continued to use it for six weeks, until a windstorm blew down the front of the building.  Armory then refused to pay Steltz arguing that the building was not constructed in a workmanlike manner and Steltz filed this action to recover payment due under the contract.  During trial, evidence was presented that showed the front wall blew down because it had not been properly tied into the rest of the building.  The court held that the defect of not tying the front wall into the building was not an obvious or patent defect, but was a latent defect.  The Court reasoned that if the defect were obvious or patent, then Armory would have accepted the defect by taking possession without conditionally doing so.  The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to offset the cost to repair the defect from the amount still owed under the contract.