McConnell v. Gordon Construction Co.

Citations

• 105 Wash. 659
• 178 P. 823
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 622

Syllabus

<p>Contracts (8-7)—Construction — Subject-Matter—Plans for Building—Guaranty of Sufficiency. In an action to recover damages from tbe collapse of a building constructed for plaintiff by defendant, it is error to permit the defendant to introduce evidence of the inadequacy of the plans, where the defendant had contracted to furnish the plans and thereby vouched for their adequacy.</p> <p>Evidence (175)—Parol to Vary Writing—Ambiguity. Defendant’s contract to “furnish” the plans for a building to be constructed for plaintiff, is not so indefinite or ambiguous as to permit oral evidence to show that plaintiff was familiar with the plans and as a matter of fact furnished them and so would be responsible for their inadequacy.</p> <p>Contracts (164, 176)—Defenses—Issues and Variance. In an action to recover damages for the collapse of a building constructed for plaintiff by defendant, the defenses of inadequacy of the plans and that the building collapsed by reason of additional weight imposed by plaintiff’s change of the plans, are of the same nature, and if only one of them was raised by affirmative defense, the defendant should not be heard to say that the other was raised and could be presented under the general denial, where the case had been at issue for months while plaintiff’s evidence was being taken by deposition, and nothing in the pleadings or at the trial specially suggested any such defense until the opportunity to guard against it had virtually passed.</p> <p>Interest (7)—Demands Not Liquidated. In an action for damages from the collapse of a building interest is recoverable only from the date of the judgment.</p>