Coey v. Lehman

Citations

• 79 Ill. 173

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—enforced according to the intention of the parties. Courts are powerless to disregard the terms of a contract plainly expressed, but it is their duty to enforce them according to the intent of the parties, as shown by the language used in the contract.</p> <p>2. Same — building contract—payment upon certificate of architect. Where the parties to a building contract agree that the superintendent shall pass upon the work, and certify to the payments to be made, his decision is binding, unless fraud or mistake on his part shall be shown.</p> <p>3. In this case, the contract provided that the work should be paid for as it progressed, upon the certificate of the architect, except fifteen per cent, which was to be held back until the work was finished and accepted by the superintending architect; it further provided that payments made under the contract, or for extra work, should in no case be construed as an acceptance of the work, but that the contractors should be liable to all the conditions of the contract until the work should be finished and accepted by the architect, and such acceptance should be signed by the architect, in order to bind the parties: Held, that the contractor could not require or compel the payment of anything on account of the work and materials, except upon presentation of the certificate of the architect; and that, as to the fifteen per cent reserved until the completion of the work, it only became payable upon the acceptance of the work, after completion, by the superintending architect, and upon presentation of a certificate signed by him.</p> <p>4. Same—merger of prior or contemporaneous provisions. Where specifications were attached to a building contract at the time of its execution, all previous or contemporaneous agreements as to changes in the specifications, were merged in the contract as executed</p>