Opinion ID: 2103439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Iber's Alleged Duties with Regard to J & B's Performance

Text: In an argument somewhat related to that based on the no-damage-for-delay clause, Iber argues that the purchase order imposed no duty on it to coordinate the overall construction. Therefore, it asserts, J & B's allegations that it could not complete its subcontracted work by July 31, 1990, are not actionable. Iber relies on J.F. Edwards Construction Co. v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (1975), 34 Ill.App.3d 929, 340 N.E.2d 572, which involved a subcontractor's suit against the Illinois highway toll authority. The subcontractor alleged that the authority had negligently scheduled the work of other subcontractors. As a result, it had breached implied duties to have construction sites available on the date set for the subcontractor to begin work. Citing what it determined were analogous Federal decisions, the court looked to the provisions of the particular contract. Those provisions, the court concluded, showed that the time fixed for the subcontractor's performance was provisional. ( Edwards, 34 Ill. App.3d at 934, 340 N.E.2d 572.) The performance was, in fact, to be controlled by the authority's engineer notwithstanding the dates specified. Edwards, 34 Ill.App.3d at 933, 340 N.E.2d 572. The decision in Edwards lends no support to Iber's argument that the allegations of J & B's complaint are legally insufficient. Here, J & B alleged that the agreement between it and Iber included the specific understanding reached between the parties in the telephone proposal that J & B was not obligated to work beyond July 31, 1990. That is sufficient in light of the conclusion that the parol evidence rule does not preclude evidence of such an understanding. Iber's duty to keep the work on schedule can be inferred from J & B's allegations regarding the purported completion date for its performance on July 31, 1990. See Amp-Rite Electric Co. v. Wheaton Sanitary District (1991), 220 Ill. App.3d 130, 151-52, 162 Ill.Dec. 659, 580 N.E.2d 622 (acknowledging the rule that one who has the right to control the work has an implied obligation to keep the work on schedule).