Republican farmer., 1919-03-28
Changes in Specifications Kept Contractor From Finishing Work on Time. CITY ATTORNEY
 TO READ OPINION City Had Paid About $4O,- GOO - Big Decision
 Against City.
Wednesday, March 26

Het 1 uCCESIOh ILtIIOCu uONh today by Judge Haines of the Superior court the City of Bridgeport must pay S191,729 damages to E. DeVOe TOmp- kins, Inc, of New York, in the two suits brought against tine city by the New York contract ing firm, which claimed con- tracts for the building of the East Washington avenue and Grand street bridges had been broken.
 This is one of the biggest legal decisions against the city in recent years and the result will be that the actual cost oi the Grand street bridge will be over S700,000 when the amounts already paid out and the pro- posed bond issues are included.
 For the Grand street contract the court awards the Tompkins corpora ton $159,759.97. For the East Washington avenue bridge he gives the plaintiff $31,968.11
 Judge Haines finds that the New York company agreed to build the Grand street bridge, May Is, 1916, for $23O,717. The contract was modified later so that the price was reduced to $210,12O. It was pro- vided that the work should be com pIeted September l, 1917
 On August 21, 1917, the city noti- fed the Tompkins corporation that the contract was terminated. On September 5, 1917, the city took pos session and excluded the contractors from the premises. They then brought suit for $2OO,OO0 damages.
 The city claimed the contractors were not building the bridge accord ing to the ternls of the contract and were delaying the work to such an extent that the city was justified in breaking the contract The Tonp- kins corporation says the delays were caused by the city, whose consult ing engineer made so many changes in the specifications that it was i'm possible for the company to finish the bridge by September l, 1917.
 in summing up the case Judge Haines says:
 Tn general the conclusion of the court is that none of the city's prin- cipaI claims are established by that preponderance of evidence which would justify the court in holding the plaintiff responsible for the serious d. +1,;r uulment of the contract.
 For these reasons and more par icularly because the court is con- vinced that the defendant must bear the responsibility for months of delay upon the piers, the judgment must be for the plaintiff
 consideration of the question as to the time limited for this work leads to the same conclusion. The defeu- dant annuIled the contract because the work could not be finished September l, 1917. The contr...t provides that if the contract is delay ed by any cause for which the city is responsible, the time stated in the agreement for the completion of the work shall be extended for a period equal to the time lost by reason of any and all such causes.
 From the conclusions which the court reaches in regard to responsi- bility for the delay on the piers. it follows that the time for the comple- ton of the contract was automatically carried beyond Sept. l, 1917, even though the contractors did not pro- cure ruling by the consulting en- gineer as to how long that extension of time should be- While it remain ed undetermined, the extension never JheleSS hPPa J1nder thS terms of the specifications, e.eh- though the limit was not fixed 1he defendant was not in position 10 5e gally annuI the contract on August zu' 1917.
 On the East washins6n avenue bridge contract the coNrt finds that the city prohibited the fompkins Cor poraton from continuing Wllh the work and nevor gave permission Tor work to be rs~Uned. Damages or s31,98s.11 are therefore awarded for loss of profits the contractors would have made.
 City Attorney William H. Comley said today: .+The city had paid Tomp- kfns $40, 900 approximately. I do not know whether I shall take an appeal, until I have had an opportunity to read the opinion"
 The Grand Street Bridge was let at a contract price of $211,00o. Tompkins worked on the bridge for a time and was dismissed. Up to the present time the bridge has cost, cash paid out, about S355,0O0. A bond issue for $2OO,000 is asked for to pay for it's completion.
 The total cash cost of the bridge will be about s555,00O. The city au- thorities believed they would collect S12O O0O from the bond of Tomp- lins. But since the city must pay Tompkins S191.00O the cost of the bridge promises to be much in excess of s700,000.
 Inndnn March 26-An American