Alabama Society for Crippled Children & Adults, Inc. v. Still Construction Co.
1975 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 596, 309 So. 2d 102, 54 Ala. App. 390 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contractor's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous contract plans is clarified in a shop drawing that is subsequently approved by the owner's architect, the contractor is entitled to payment for work performed in conformity with that approved drawing. The owner bears the cost of any subsequent changes they direct.
Facts:
- In September 1972, an appellant-owner entered into a construction contract with an appellee-contractor.
- The architect's plans contained an ambiguity regarding window bays: a symbol on the drawings indicated only one of six windows should be operable, but written specifications called for 'projecting' windows.
- The appellee submitted a shop drawing to the appellant's architect detailing its interpretation to install one operable and five stationary windows per bay.
- In October 1972, the appellant's architect formally approved the appellee's shop drawing.
- In February 1973, the appellee installed the windows as specified in the approved shop drawing.
- The appellant initially paid the appellee for the window installation through routine progress payments.
- Subsequently, the appellant asserted that all six windows in each bay should be operable, and the architect rejected the already-installed windows.
- The appellee replaced the windows as directed but the appellant refused to pay for the extra work or the remaining $1,000 retainage from the original contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee-plaintiff (contractor) filed a suit on a mechanic’s lien against appellant-defendant (owner) in an Alabama trial court.
- Before trial, appellee served a Request for Admission on appellant, which went unanswered.
- On the day of the trial, appellant filed a counterclaim alleging the work was uncompleted and unsatisfactory.
- The trial court, after hearing evidence ore tenus, entered a judgment for appellee in the amount of $5,993 and denied appellant's counterclaim.
- Appellant, as the defendant from the trial court, appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contractor bear the cost of replacing work that was completed in accordance with shop drawings approved by the owner's architect, when the architect later asserts the work did not match the original plans' intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes, J.
No. A contractor does not bear the cost of replacing work that was completed in accordance with shop drawings approved by the owner's architect. The court reasoned that the trial court's findings of fact, based on live 'ore tenus' testimony, are given the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Here, there was credible evidence supporting the judgment, including testimony from multiple expert witnesses that the appellee's interpretation of the ambiguous plans was standard in the industry. Critically, the appellant's own architect approved the appellee's shop drawing four months before the windows were installed, thereby resolving the ambiguity and authorizing the work as performed. Furthermore, the appellant's failure to respond to a Request for Admission had the legal effect of admitting that the work was 'satisfactorily completed,' which defeated the appellant's counterclaim.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the binding legal effect of an architect's approval of shop drawings in the context of a construction contract. It establishes that such approval can resolve ambiguities in the original plans and specifications, thereby protecting a contractor who proceeds in reliance on that approval. The case also serves as a strong affirmation of the 'ore tenus' rule, reinforcing the deference appellate courts give to a trial court's factual findings based on live witness testimony. Lastly, it provides a practical lesson on the significant procedural consequences of failing to respond to a Request for Admission, which can result in key facts being deemed conclusively established against the non-responding party.
