Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-12-06
Rescripts in Cumberland, Andres
coggin and Lincoln County Cases.

struct the building according to the
terms OF the contract and all of the
drawings. specifications and stipula-
tons which were made a part of the
contract. for the agreed price of s29,-
500 TINS contract bears date May 20.
1910. and the bond in suit, signed by
the contractor, Chevalier, and the
surety company, is dated July 5, 1910.
Work Oh the building was began two
or three weeks after the date of the
contract and was continued under the
supervision of Architect Desjardines
until Aug Is, when as the defendants
claim, heavy fall of rain undermin-
ed the stone foundation at one corner
of the building and caused two of the
partially constructed walls near that
corner to settle and crack. The plain
tiff contends that the settling and
cracking of the walls was due TO the
failure OF the contractor to lay the
foundation and protect the work, &C
cording to the plans and specifica-
/. tions, and that IL was known to the
contractor that the foundation at that
point was settling before he rainfall.
On the 2sd day of August the archi-
tect notified the contractor to tear
down those brick walls and stone
foundations and rebuild them accord
ing to contract and specifications
And on the 9th day of the same
month, the plaintiff caused due notice
to be given to the Surety Co. of the
contractors failure to. perform his con-
tract.
After the contractor had received
from the architect the notification OF
Aug. 90, and this had been reinforced
by "a like notice from the plaintiff
demanding that he tear down the
brick walls and stone foundations i'm
question and rebuild threm accord
ing TO the contract. he accepted the
inevitable result and surrendered the
contract. He had manifestly become
convinced prior to Aug. Ii that the
building could not be erected in
workmanlike manner, according to the.
plans and specifications, for the con-
tract price of $29.500; but after the dis
covery OF the defective foundations
and the demand by the owner for
rebuilding of the walls. he realized
that compliance with this demand ana
full performance of his contract
would involve heavy loss to him.
The Surety Co. thereupon formally
viewed the privilege to assume the
contract.
The situation which then confront
ed the plaintiff was not free from
practical difficulty. 1t had paid the
contractor $4,000 and become liable to
pay valid lien claims for $12S6 more
AS a result of the contractors fail
ure to perforrA his work according to
the contract, the foundations We're not
sufficiently substantial and secure to
sustain a building of the height call
ed for by the original plan. After ex-
pending all of its cash on hand upon
Chevaliers rejected work. it was not
practicable to raise sufficient FUNDS
to tear down his worn. and commence
ing anew, construct the building ac-
cording to the original plan. The So
ciety, therefore, adopted the only
course remaining. 1t procured the
services of another architect, redraft-
ed and altered the plans and proceed
ed to erect building one story low
er and otherwise materially differ
ent from that originally planned.
Chevalier's foundation and walls, as
strengthened and repaired, We're
deemed sufficient to support build
ing erected according to the modified
plan, and they were accordingly
allowed to stand and were utilized in
the building, finally erected. Thus the
amount of the damage caused by the
contractors failure to perform his
contract according to the specifica-
tons, for which the defendant would
be legally responsible, was reduced to
the lowest practicable figure.
~