Opinion ID: 2608725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is the Appellant Really Chargeable With 65 Days of Delay?

Text: We see no need to delve into the murky issue of the importance of the delay in delivery of the fire hydrants. In his decision letter, the trial court stated: It is noted that paragraph thirty-seven [reproduced in our footnote 2, supra] of the general conditions of the contract in this case provides that the contractor is to give the engineer and owner prompt notice in writing of the cause of any delays attributable to the owner. There is no evidence to indicate that the contractor offered such notice, thereby lending greater weight to the theory that the owner should not now be prohibited from pursuing his liquidated damages claim. In Quin Blair Construction, supra, at 597 P.2d 951-952, we said: Paragraph 8.3.1 and 8.3.2, supra, make plain that Julien was required to request in writing any extensions of time to complete the contract, even if the delay was due to the owner's actions or neglect. It is evident from the record that Julien at no time requested in writing an extension of time to complete the contract. [Footnote] We can see no reason why we should ignore these plain and unambiguous terms of the contract. They serve a plain and beneficial purpose when disagreement arises. If there is to be an extension of the time, it should be in writing for all to see as contemplated by the contract terms. After competent parties have solemnly contracted, a court should exercise restraint in nullifying its terms and any other practice is dangerous, Younglove v. Graham & Hill, Wyo. 1974, 526 P.2d 689. When a party makes a contract and reduces it to writing, he must abide by its plainly stated terms. Chiquita Mining Co. v. Fairbanks, Morse & Co., 1940, 60 Nev. 142, 104 P.2d 191. We hold that Julien's failure to request in writing an extension of time to complete the contract is fatal to his contention that he should be allowed additional time to complete this contract due to delay caused by the owner. Herbert & Brooner Construction Co. v. Golden, Mo. App. 1973, 499 S.W.2d 541; Flour Mills of America, Inc. v. American Steel Buildings Co., Okl., 1968, 449 P.2d 861; Austin-Griffith, Inc. v. Goldberg, 1953, 224 S.C. 372, 79 S.E.2d 447, 42 A.L.R.2d 1123. The footnote appended to the above text, found at 597 P.2d 951, 952, is also pertinent. We said: The district court found that the parties ignored many, if not most of the provisions of their contract. While parties to a contract are free to do this, they must also understand that they may bear the consequences of such disregard when breach becomes a fact of life. As a general rule, if the parties mutually adopt a mode of performing their contract differing from its strict terms or if they mutually relax its terms by adopting a loose mode of executing it, neither party can go back upon the past and insist upon a breach, because it was not fulfilled according to its letter. See Detroit Greyhound Employees Federal Credit Union v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 1967, 7 Mich. App. 430, 151 N.W.2d 852, 857. Here there was never any mutual agreement to vary any terms. There was unilateral disregard of terms. There were terms neither party ever seemed to be cognizant of or understand. However, there was never any mutual agreement to do anything different and the parties must be held bound to their agreements. It is in just such instances as this that it becomes most important to read and strictly construe contracts. Although the appellant in this case does not urge that we disregard the contract, it appears from reading the appellate briefs that both sides have paid only casual attention to the contract. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of a mutual agreement to vary the contract and the trial judge properly resorted to the General Conditions of the contract. E.g., Quin Blair, supra. Appellant has not drawn our attention to any evidence in the record which contradicts the trial court's statement that appellant never complied with the procedure of Paragraph 37, nor have we discovered any. We hold that the trial judge was correct in holding the appellant legally liable for the days of delay which it did not charge to the appellee. [3] Affirmed.