Opinion ID: 1628617
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Delays and Extensions Clause

Text: The first issue presented is whether the Department is contractually responsible for actions or nonactions which may have hindered plaintiff in his work and caused damages. This involves an interpretation of the Delays and Extensions clause; for if the Department is not contractually responsible for delays caused by it, we need not inquire into whether the delays were or were not caused by the Department. We find, however, that the Delays and Extensions clause does not exonerate the Department. The clause refers to official agencies other than the Departmentthird parties whose approval or actions might be involved in the contract. For example, because this project was in large measure financed by Federal funds, the Bureau of Public Roads may, conceivably, have delayed approval of plans and designs submitted by plaintiff. A delay by the Bureau would have been caused by one of the official agencies referred to in the contract and would have been beyond the control of the Department. Plaintiff would, under the language of the clause, be entitled to credit and extensions of time, but no additional compensation would be due by the Department for actions of third parties. Thus the clause seeks to exculpate the engineers and the Department for delays beyond their control or for delays caused by tardy approvals of work in progress by various official agencies. For, while the clause provides that the engineer is not responsible for such delays, he receives no extra compensation from the Department for the delays caused by others, but, instead, is granted extensions of time to compensate for these delays, thus avoiding a default under the contract if the work is not completed on time. In like manner the Department is exculpated from the payment of compensation for the delays of third parties, but, at the same time, it must grant additional delays. Nothing is said otherwise about relieving the contracting parties from violations of their contractual obligations. Certainly nothing is said about relieving the Department of the obligation to pay the engineers for damages caused by delays of the Department. When the contract is considered as a whole, the Department's argument is readily disclosed to be untenable. La.Civil Code art. 1948. There are numerous references to the Department throughout the contract. In each instance we have noted where the Department is intended to be referred to, Department is used. We think the reference to various official agencies is, therefore, a reference to agencies other than the Departmentagencies whose influence upon the contract could not have been foreseen when the contract was confected and over which the Department had no control. If the Department intended to include itself within the Delays and Extensions clause provisions, it would have said so. The contract was its own, prepared by it and in general use. La.Civil Code art. 1958. To include the Department within the meaning of various official agencies as used in the Delays and Extensions clause would, moreover, be to say that the Department could provide, contractually, that work must be performed within a stipulated time subject to approvals by it, and, at the same time, that it would bear no responsibility for damages incurred by the contractor resulting from its failure to timely approve performance. The provision would, in effect, make the performance of the agreement depend entirely upon the will of the Department, one of the contracting parties, who, by deliberate delays in approvals of plans or designs, could hinder the contractor in the performance of his contractual obligations without any responsibility on the part of the Department for the hindrance. The contract would then be subject to a potestative condition and null. La. Civil Code art. 2024, 2034. We do not construe a contract to nullify it when its language does not unequivocally require such a construction. La. Civil Code art. 1951; Sporl v. New York Indemnity Co., 176 La. 363, 145 So. 771 (1932); Note, 8 Tul.L.Rev. 124 (1933). We are bound to give effect to all contracts according to the true intent of the parties determined by the words of the contract. La. Civil Code art. 1945. Accordingly, we reject the Department's contention and give the language of the contract effect by saying the clause various official agencies does not include the Department.