Jennings v. City of Pasco

Citations

• 82 Wash. 335
• 144 P. 37
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1502

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Corporations — Improvements—Contracts—Construction — Payment in Bonds- — Accrued Interest. Where a contractor for a public improvement proposed to do the work for a gross sum, payable in local improvement bonds “at par value with accrued interest thereon,” and also itemized his bid according to the units of the plans and specifications of the improvement, a subsequent contract reciting that the gross sum bid is an approximate estimate of the contract price, which is “to be paid in accordance with the unit bid submitted,” fifteen per cent of the cost being payable in cash or warrants and eighty-five per cent in local improvement bonds, is so different in its terms as to be deemed an independent contract, and hence the word “bonds” as used in the contract, without qualification or reference to the bid, must be construed in its ordinary meaning as signifying delivery of bonds at their par value, and not as entitling the contractor to bonds whose face value equals eighty-five per cent of the contract price, when their par value is greater by reason of accumulated interest.</p> <p>Same — Contracts—Disputed Points — Construction by Engineer —Conclusiveness. Where a contract for constructing a public sewer provides that, in case of disputes arising between the parties in regard to the specifications, the construction placed thereon by the city engineer shall be accepted as final, his decision is binding, even though he admit, but without altering his decision, that the specifications might be capable of a different interpretation.</p>