United States for Use of Susi Contracting Co. v. Zara Contracting Co.
United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
146 F.2d 606 (1944)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
On March 4, 1941, Zara Contracting Co. (Zara) (defendant) entered a contract with the United States, whereby Zara agreed to construct an extension to an airport. On April 2, 1941, Zara entered a subcontract with Susi Contracting Co. and D’Agostino & Cuccio, Inc. (plaintiffs) to perform all of the work required under the main contract. Article 5 of the subcontract stated that no representations had been made regarding the subsurface conditions, and that the plaintiffs could not make a claim for damages due to unknown conditions. During excavation, the plaintiffs discovered unexpected soil conditions that caused difficulty in the performance of the work and required work not called for under the main contract. The plaintiffs demanded more money for their work. Zara refused and, two months after the plaintiffs began work, took over the work itself. The plaintiffs sued Zara, alleging wrongful termination of the subcontract. They sought, among other things, the reasonable value of their work. The district court found that Zara had wrongfully terminated the contract and owed the plaintiffs $39,107.10 for the plaintiffs’ services and $18,600.00 for the increased cost of excavation. Zara appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ entitlement to the $18,600.00 for the increased costs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
