Fondedile, S.a. v. C.e. Maguire, Inc. A/k/a Maguire Group, Inc. (Rhode Island 1992)

Summary

The court affirmed judgment for the defendants on the contractor’s claims for additional compensation arising from unexpected seawall movement, drilling difficulties, and excess grout consumption. It held that no enforceable oral contract modification was proved, the challenged meeting notes were properly excluded, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants’ negligence proximately caused its damages. The court corrected one factual finding concerning the manner of seawall movement but deemed the error nonprejudicial and remanded the case.

Holding

Oral modification. The plaintiff did not prove a valid oral modification requiring additional compensation for excess grout. Although the parties discussed alternative compensation, the contract required written modifications, and the parties’ prior conduct showed that objective assent was manifested through written change orders.

Admissibility of handwritten meeting notes. The trial justice properly excluded the handwritten notes because the critical statement could not be attributed to a party opponent or identified declarant, and the circumstances raised sufficient reliability concerns to justify exclusion as a business record.

Nature of seawall movement. The trial justice erred in relying in part on expert testimony to find that the seawall moved as an integral unit, because the record showed testimony that the blocks moved in varying amounts. The error was nonprejudicial because the precise manner of movement did not determine the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover.

Proximate cause of negligence damages. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants’ failure to disclose seawall movement proximately caused its extra drilling and grouting costs.

Implied warranty of site conditions. The plaintiff could not recover under an implied-warranty theory because it incurred no extra costs due to the defendants’ nondisclosure after learning of the wall movement and proceeding with knowledge that the contract representations were inaccurate.

Express warranty of site conditions. The bid packet and contract documents did not create an express warranty that the subsurface information or site conditions were accurate.

Fondedile, S.a. v. C.e. Maguire, Inc. A/k/a Maguire Group, Inc.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by