Grant Construction Co. v. Burns

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if the breach of a contractual duty was a risk that the contractor “did not contractually agree to assume, or which was not within the contemplation of the parties,” damages should not be limited to the defined amount
• an order to a contractor to proceed in the face of the contractee's failure to schedule removal of utility facilities constituted interference
• where delay results from causes not within the contemplation of the parties or, where delay is caused by active or direct interference by contractee, “no damage” provision of contract need not be adhered to
• “where . . . the state has entered into a contract pursuant to legislative authorization, the state has consented to be sued for alleged breaches of its contractual responsibilities and cannot invoke the protection of sovereign immunity”
• “[W]here, as here, the state has entered into a contract pursuant to legislative authorization, the state has consented to be sued for alleged breaches of its contractual responsibilities and cannot invoke the protection of sovereign immunity. ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).