Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

815 P.2d 1135 (1991)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Sherrodd, Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.

Montana Supreme Court
815 P.2d 1135 (1991)

Play video


Sherrodd, Inc. (Sherrodd) (plaintiff) entered into a contract with COP Construction (COP) (defendant) as a subcontractor on a construction contract. COP was itself a subcontractor, with Morrison-Knudsen Co. (Morrison-Knudsen) (defendant) and Schlekeway Construction, Inc. (Schlekeway) serving as general contractors. Sherrodd submitted a bid to do excavation. Sherrodd claims that, while it was reviewing the building site, a representative of Morrison-Knudsen told Sherrodd that the job required 25,000 cubic yards of excavation. Morrison-Knudsen denies that any of its representatives quoted this figure to Sherrodd. Sherrodd submitted its bid of $97,500 to COP based upon this representation. COP submitted its bid, which included Sherrodd’s bid, to Morrison-Knudsen. Morrison-Knudsen accepted the bids. Before the written contract was signed, Sherrodd began its excavation. Sherrod discovered that more than 50,000 cubic yards of excavation were required. The written contract was then presented to Sherrodd, which stated that Sherrodd agreed to perform “LS” excavation for the consideration of $97,500. The parties concede that “LS” means “lump sum.” The contract additionally provided that it could not be orally modified. Sherrodd claims that it complained to COP about the amount of excavation required, but signed the contract anyway because COP threatened to withhold a progress payment. Sherrodd further claims that both COP and Schlekeway orally promised that Sherrodd would be paid an amount that reflected actual work done, rather than the price quoted in the contract. When Sherrodd completed the excavation, COP paid the $97,500 provided for in the contract, less an amount for work that was not completed. Sherrodd claims that, as a result of the contract, it lost the ability to borrow money, lost bonding, suffered a lack of operating capital leaving it unable to perform other contracts, and could no longer stay in business, as it had done for 30 years. Sherodd filed suit, seeking quantum meruit for the additional excavation it completed above and beyond the 25,000 cubic yards. Morrison-Knudsen filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding that the parol evidence rule prohibited Sherrodd from introducing evidence that conflicted with the express terms of the agreement. Sherrodd appealed to the Supreme Court of Montana.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Turnage, C.J.)

Dissent ( Trieweiler, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership