The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1922-09-28
SETTLEMENT PAVING
ROW COMES IN COURT
Continued From Page y


who took issue with Judge Brett over
the Interpretation Of the contract his
contention beirg that IT was a unit
bid proposition. and not a lump sum
contract. citing several other contracts
now In force between the city and the
contractor. and some that have been
fulfilled wherein the final estimate on
the Job was less than the contract
price, wherein contracto' did not re.
ceive or expect pay for work not per.
formel.
AS :. spt cial Instance re- took Seventh
avenue, northwest. where the property
owners were saved over $4,000 on the
job by the final estimate Of the city en-.
gineer whose figures were that much
less than the lump sum bid Of the con.
tractor.
Citaes Instances
Mr.. Paul stated that the same condi-
ton arose on the Stanley boulevard and
c street paving jobs, that the final esti.
mate Of the engineer was much less
than the original bid, and the contractor
would not accept a penny except for
work actually performed.
This phase of the situation did not
IMPRESS the property owners OF West
Broadway or e street, they contend that
the contract price, and only the con.
tract price, is all they intend to pay
and are prepared to take matters to
the court If necessary
Attorney Paul for the contractor sub
nitted the following proposition as a
oasis of settlement, which after con.
siderable discussion was rejected.
Submit to Court
He proposed TO put bonds in escrow
with the city clerk in the amount OF
the difference of the contract price
and the final estimate of the engineer
for himself and the city attorney to
agree upon q statement Of facts TO be
presented to the district Judge of this
county and go before the district court
and abide by the decision.
This proposition appealed to the may
or and board of city commissioners, but
not to the property owners of theil
representative who insisted there was
but one way of settlement. and that
was the acceptance of the contract
price by the contractor.
Mayor r. A. Hefner read a clause ir
the contract covering controversies thai
nay arise, and the manner provided
herein for settlement, but this was
lot adopted. The clause covering thi.
matter says in substance that al contro
yersies arising between property own
ers and the contractor shall be left I,
the city engineer for final settlement
provided, however, the contractor ha!
right TO appeal to the city commission
ers. In the event of q dispute the city
engineer, with an engineer selected b.
the contractor, are TO select q thir(
engineer who will arbitrate the matte!
and their decision is to be final.
Simmered Down
The question upon which the contro
versy hinges is whether the contract 4
based upon the unit basis which III,
contractor contends 1t is, or whether 4
can be constructed as a contract GOV
erins all work at lump figure which
property owners are insisting upon, Il
the one that will finally decide the is
sue.
There has been a suit filed In distrlc
court by Tom Carter, for himself ant
property owners OF Twelfth avenue
northwest, embracing identical phases
OF the two contracts in controversy
This suit will be up for trial next Tues
day, and it is expected that the de
cision In that case will exercise an in
fluence on the other pending cases IL
the city.
Attorney Paul announced Wednesda,
night that ne would be here TO lool
after the interest OF his client.
Settlement Expected
r. B. Orr city attorney, stated L
the mayor and board OF commissioner
that ne was of the opinion all question,