Adamant Plaster Manufacturing Co. v. National Bank of Commerce

Citations

• 5 Wash. 232
• 31 P. 634
• 1892 Wash. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>CONTRACTS —AMBIGUITY —PAROL PROOF — EVIDENCE OF CUSTOM — COMPENSATION FOR EXTRAS.</p> <p>In an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien for plastering a certain building with adamant under a contract providing that “the brick walls will receive two coats of adamant plaster and will be made straight and plumb,” it was shown that the walls were very irregular and considerably out of plumb, more so than usual in such buildings, and that they would require in places plastering of the thickness of two and three inches to make them straight and plumb, while the extreme thickness of two coats of adamant plaster was but five-eighths of an inch; that the parties knew at the time of drafting the contract that two coats of adamant plaster could not be so applied as to make the walls straight and plumb. Held, That the parties intended that the excessive irregularities in the brick wall should be filled up before the application of the two coats of adamant, and the contract not specifying the material to be used for such filling, is to that extent ambiguous and uncertain, and parol proof is admissible to show that it was the understanding and agreement between the parties that the filling required before the application of the two coats of adamant plaster was to be of common lime mortar.</p> <p>Such contract being ambiguous, proof of a custom to fill in irregularities in brick walls with lime mortar before applying adamant plaster is admissible to explain the ambiguity.</p> <p>Where a contract contemplates that irregularities in a brick wall shall be filled with common lime mortar before applying coats of adamant plaster, and under a supplemental contract such irregularities are filled with adamant, extra compensation can be recovered only for the difference between the cost of the two.</p>