Board of Public Works v. L. Cosby Bernard and Co.
Indiana Court of Appeals
435 N.E.2d 575 (1982)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
The Board of Public Works of Hammond, Indiana (Board) (defendant) hired L. Cosby Bernard and Co. (Cosby) (plaintiff) to design a building for the city. The architectural services contract provided that Cosby would receive a 6.5 percent commission on the total cost of construction, which was estimated to be $1.5 million. Cosby made preliminary drawings of the building and was paid for the work. The next step was for Cosby to complete final construction documents. The City Engineer, however, learned that federal funds might be available for the project and had Cosby design a fancier building with the advice of the City Engineer, the mayor, and various other officials. Because of the enhanced project design, however, Cosby submitted an additional claim that would have nearly doubled its fee. However, Cosby only received payment based on the original $1.5 million cost estimate. The City Controller refused to pay the additional amount because the Common Council had only appropriated enough funds to pay Cosby’s commission on the original $1.5 million construction estimate. Cosby sued. The parties disputed whether the Common Council and the Board knew about the project’s expansion or authorized the federal funding application. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cosby on the basis that the contract obligated the city to pay the commission. The Board appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Conover, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.