The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-12-17

The bid of the Dunn Construction company, which was the only bidder for the bonds. was presented by ". R. J, Dunn. vice president of the con- eern and stipulated that acceptance of the bid by the board of revenue would be construed as notice to that company 10 begin immediate work on the North Bessemer road in pur- suance to the contract of April 2s. 1920, with that company and that the bid was made on condition that the board carry out the contract as orig inally let.
 Rejection by tho board Of the bid under the conditions expressed is be- lieved to mean that 1t will repudiate the contract as made and decline to carry 1t out Motion to reject the bid was made by w. B. Copeland and seconded by Jerry Gwin. In making his Motion MT. Copeland stated that while he did not like to be put in the position of repudlatlng a contract l he would rather pay damages than | to carry out the contract as origi- nally made in view of the lessened cost materials and labor costs at the ent time as compared with thoscp 4 the spring of 1920 when the contract was let.
 l When the bid was read members of the board stated that they had | hoped a premium would be added by the construction company which would enable them to carry out the contract and take care of the differ ence between construction costs as they existed when the contract was 1 let and now.
 Adjourned Meeting Called ! While no specific premium was m ntioned 1t is believed that the board had 10 per cent In mind as being sufficient to cover the differ ence in cost of construction.
 Following rejection of the Dunn liS, a representative of another bond house told the board that he might be prepared to bid on the bonds ad- vertised by today and the board passed a resolution for an adjourned meeting this morning to accept any Lids he may desire to make on the bonds.
 Motion of the board yesterday, it is believed, will result in abandon ment of injunction proceedings threatened against them to prevent their carrying out of the original l
 contract on the ground that owing to the difference in construction costs between the date of the original con tract and now the contract could ps relet and carried out at saving estimated at from s60,000 to $tl0,ooV. Notice was served on the board some time ago by Percy. Benners and Burr, attorneys. representing number or citizens that if an attempt was made | by the board to carry out the original contract with the Dunn company legal proceedings to enjoin them would be filed. In view of the action of the board yesterday, it Is not be- lieved such proceedings will now be filed.
 Suits May Follow
 Probability that damage suits will 1 be filed by the Dunn Construction company against the board of reye- nue for alleged breach of contract in view of their rejection of the bids, in case the board fails to ultimately | carry out the contract looms large. although w R. J. Dunn, who was present when the board rejected his bid, declined to state what the future course of his company would be for that the matter will eventually result in damage suits not only being filed against the bol~d for failure to carry out the Bessemer contract but for failure to carry out four other con- tracts with the Dunn company let at