Title: 71 Const. v. Wesco Elec., Inc.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

71 Const. v. Wesco Elec., Inc.1996 WY 140924 P.2d 991Case Number: 96-72Decided: 10/16/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
71 
CONSTRUCTION, a Wyoming corporation,

 Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

WESCO ELECTRIC, INC., a 
Wyoming corporation,

 Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

Appeal from District 
Court, Fremont County, Nancy J. Guthrie, J.

Thomas F. Reese 
and B.J. Baker of Brown, Drew, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, for 
appellant.

John P. Worrall, 
Worland, for appellee.

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      General 
contractor, 71 Construction, appeals an adverse judgment for its subcontractor, 
Wesco Electric, Inc. (Wesco), following a bench trial in which the parties 
litigated which one had breached the contract. We affirm the 
judgment.

ISSUES

[¶2]      71 Construction 
presents these issues for review:

1.         The 
conclusion of the Court in the Order entered December 11, 1995 that "Plaintiff 
(appellee Wesco Electric, Inc.) did not breach the contract" between the parties 
is contrary to the express provisions of the contract and the undisputed 
evidence adduced at the trial, and is erroneous because it does not reflect 
proper legal standards for the construction of a contract.

2.         The 
Court's finding and conclusion in the Order dated December 11, 1995 that, 
"Plaintiff (appellee Wesco Electric, Inc.) should have been notified of the 
August start-up so they (sic.) could have been present," is contrary to the 
express terms of the contract. The Court cannot make a contract for the parties 
that they did not make themselves.

[¶3]      Wesco views the 
issue as:

1.         
Whether or not the trial court's interpretation of the contract between 
the parties was supported by the evidence presented at 
trial.

FACTS

[¶4]      71 Construction 
obtained a contract with the town of Shoshoni, Wyoming, to supply a water system 
for the Shoshoni Water Project. By written contract, Wesco subcontracted to 
supply electrical and telemetry system requirements for 71 Construction on the 
project. Wesco subcontracted part of the work to Automation & Electronics. 
The water project was set in two phases requiring a start-up procedure upon 
completion of the first phase before the second phase could begin. The initial 
start-up was attempted on July 14, 1993. Wesco was notified and was present. Its 
own subcontractor, Automation & Electronics, was not represented although it 
had been notified. The pumps to put two wells on line failed to operate because 
of electrical problems. Wesco determined that the problems should be fixed by 
Automation & Electronics and the start-up was aborted.

[¶5]      Automation & 
Electronics returned to the site and made repairs; however, Wesco did not return 
to the job site after July 14, 1993. Wesco submitted a final bill on July 19, 
1993, but contended at trial that this was done in advance of its completion of 
all work in order to comply with 71 Construction's billing practices. It was 
established at trial that, on August 2, 1993, Wesco notified 71 Construction's 
project manager that all work had not yet been completed. A new start-up date of 
August 13, 1993 was scheduled by 71 Construction, but this time no one notified 
Wesco. Consequently, on that date, neither Wesco nor Automation & 
Electronics had a representative present. Electricity had not been connected at 
a terminal box which would have opened a valve and the two wells flooded, 
causing damage which cost $9,210.66 to repair. Following its own investigation, 
71 Construction unilaterally determined that Wesco was responsible for the 
damage and off-set Wesco's final payment by $9,137.04 to pay for the damage. 
Wesco sued to recover that sum. 71 Construction countered that Wesco breached 
the contract by failing to connect electrical wires at the terminal box. Wesco 
replied that 71 Construction breached the contract by failing to notify Wesco of 
the August 13th start-up date when it would have connected the wires. 71 
Construction responded that the contract contains no such notification 
requirement.

[¶6]      Following a bench 
trial, the district court determined that Wesco rendered all the required 
services of the contract and did not breach the contract. The court determined 
that the August 13, 1993 start-up required Wesco's presence but it did not 
receive notice and was not present during this critical phase of the project. 
The court further determined that damage did result to the system during the 
August 13, 1993 start-up because Wesco was not present, but the court ruled 
Wesco was not negligent, and therefore, was not responsible for the damage. This 
appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      71 Construction 
contends negligence was not an issue and that the only issue the court should 
have determined was whether Wesco breached the contract when its electrical work 
malfunctioned and it aborted the July 14th start-up, and when it failed to 
connect wires at the terminal box causing damage during the August 13th 
start-up. Wesco contends 71 Construction breached the contract when it failed to 
notify Wesco about the later start-up in order for Wesco to be present. The 
trial court concluded that: 

[Wesco] rendered the 
necessary services under this contract. [Wesco] did not breach the contract. It 
completed the contracted work in a timely and efficient manner. . . . [Wesco] 
did not receive notice, nor was present during, the August 13, 1993 start-up. 
This was a critical phase of the project. [Wesco] should have been notified of 
the August start-up so they could have been present.

[¶8]      All of these 
factual issues were disputed. The question of breach of contract was for the 
trial court. Atlas Const. Co., Inc. v. Aqua Drilling Co., 559 P.2d 39, 40 (Wyo. 
1977). We sustain a trial court's findings and judgment on questions of fact 
unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight of the 
evidence. In making such a determination, we examine the evidence in a light 
most favorable to the prevailing party, without considering evidence of the 
other party which conflicts. Morris v. Staab, 896 P.2d 773, 775 (Wyo. 
1995).

[¶9]      The subcontractor 
agreement required Wesco:

To perform and coordinate 
his work with that of the Contractor and other sub-contractors to the best 
interest of the project as a whole as directed by the Contractor. . . 
.

The evidence at 
trial from both Wesco witnesses and 71 Construction's project manager 
established that it was customary and necessary to have all contractors and 
subcontractors present at a start-up in order to perform and coordinate with 
each other and to prevent the type of damage which occurred in this case. Other 
evidence at trial established that 71 Construction intended that Wesco be 
present at the August 13th start-up but failed to notify it. 71 Construction's 
argument concedes that "Wesco's employees were required to be present and were 
present at the attempted start up on July 14, 1993. . . ." It is inconsistent 
for 71 Construction to now argue that the trial court erred in finding that 
Wesco's presence was required at the August 13th start-up. The implication of 
this contract provision is that 71 Construction was required to notify Wesco of 
the August 13th start-up so that Wesco could be present. See Hogan v. Postin, 
695 P.2d 1042, 1047 (Wyo. 1985) (Rooney, J., dissenting). Furthermore, nothing 
in the contract required Wesco complete its work by a certain date. The evidence 
at trial was that Wesco did not have a completion date and the record did 
establish that Wesco never informed 71 Construction project engineers that its 
work had been completed before August 13th, and the district court so found. 
There was sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment and we 
affirm.