Opinion ID: 1257482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Exhaustive examination of the complex trial evidence, including blueprints, shop drawings and correspondence reveals a conflict as to who was to design and why that design did not work satisfactorily within the environment of the plant in southwestern Wyoming. We would find this entire subject subsumed within the inquiry of design responsibility and, with conflicting evidence, will accord the trial court the normal preference in affirmation. [2] Our rule is that where the sufficiency of evidence is an issue we uphold the judgment if there is evidence to support it, and in so doing we look only to the evidence submitted by the prevailing party and give to it every favorable inference which may be drawn therefrom, without considering any contrary evidence. Hance v. Straatsma, 721 P.2d 575, 578 (Wyo. 1986). See also Ruby Drilling Co., Inc. v. Title Guar. Co. of Wyoming, Inc., 750 P.2d 674 (Wyo. 1988); Eddy v. First Wyoming Bank, N.A.-Lander, 750 P.2d 294 (Wyo. 1988); Alexander v. Phillips Oil Co. a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Co., 741 P.2d 117 (Wyo. 1987); Western Utility Contractors, Inc. v. City of Casper, 731 P.2d 24 (Wyo. 1986); and Simpson v. Kistler Inv. Co., 713 P.2d 751 (Wyo. 1986). Somewhat differently placed is the phrase turn key as found in the supply purchase agreement. As a well-established construction industry term, turn key means completion of the facility to operational status subject only to punch list and warranty item so that the purchaser can turn the key and commence occupancy or operation. See TK Harris Co. v. CIR, 112 F.2d 76 (6th Cir.1940), involving the turn key construction of an oil well; Glassman Const. Co., Inc. v. Maryland City Plaza, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 1154, 1157 (D.Md. 1974); Dachner v. Union Lead Mining & Smelter Co., 65 Nev. 313, 195 P.2d 208 (1948); Robbins v. C.W. Myers Trading Post, Inc., 253 N.C. 474, 117 S.E.2d 438 (1960); Waddle v. Gammel, 305 P.2d 559, 563 (Okl. 1956); and Gantt v. Van Der Hoek, 251 S.C. 307, 162 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1968). Cf. Valentine v. Ormsbee Exploration Corp., 665 P.2d 452 (Wyo. 1983), day work contract distinguished from hourly contract or turn key contract. A turnkey project is one in which the developer builds in accordance with plans and specifications of his own architect subject to performance specifications for quality and workmanship, and with limited guidance for features as style of house, number of bathrooms, etc. 1 B.J. McBride & I. Wachtel, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS § 9.120[12] (1980). Lincoln Services, Ltd. v. United States, 678 F.2d 157, 158-59 n. 2, 230 Ct.Cl. 416 (1982), concerning a turnkey design and construction contract. The requirements of minimum specifications do not prevent a contract from being turn key. C & L Const. Co. v. United States, 6 Cl. Ct. 791, 802 n. 4 (1984), aff'd 790 F.2d 93 (Fed. Cir.1986). However, with delivery of unassembled parts in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and the key to be ultimately turned in far away LaBarge, Wyoming, and the assemblers situated at plants near Salt Lake City, Utah, this court agrees with the trial court in this factual situation, regardless of the term's more normal meaning. Smithco did not establish a warranty of design by IFI considering the completion and installation by third parties on behalf of the subcontractor, Smithco. As Justice Holmes in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S.Ct. 158, 159, 62 L.Ed. 372 (1918) astutely espoused: A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. The use of the term turn key does not abrogate the general rule that the entire contract must be considered to determine the meaning. Glassman Const. Co., Inc., 371 F. Supp. 1154; Robbins, 117 S.E.2d 438. Also, the express contract terms can control over any industry usage. Glassman Const. Co., Inc., 371 F. Supp. at 1158. Thus when the acceptance letter's use of the expression turn key is read in conjunction with the job specification requirements, we conclude that the trial court correctly found no design responsibility assumed by IFI. Moreover, the design responsibility in even a usual turn key contract can be restricted. [T]he term turn-key construction job under the applicable case law imposes upon the contractor the responsibility for providing the design of the project and responsibility for any deficiencies or defects in design, except to the extent that such responsibility is specifically waived or limited by the contract documents. Mobile Housing Environments v. Barton and Barton, 432 F. Supp. 1343, 1346 (D.Colo. 1977) (emphasis added). Although the use of the word is unusual in accord with its normal definition, it is fair to accept the operational context that it, as found by the trial court, meant everything present necessary to put the package together to be a workable unit. This is unlike the situation faced by the Delaware Supreme Court in Neilson Business Equipment Center, Inc. v. Italo V. Monteleone, M.D., P.A., 524 A.2d 1172, 1174 (Del.Super. 1987), where the purchaser and the supplier contracted that the turn-key computer system was to be both chosen and customized to the office's desired billing method by the supplier and was to function immediately. We find no error by the trial court in discerning by the term `turn key,' IFI and Smithco intended and understood that IFI was to marshal for delivery to Smithco the various louvers, actuators, cables and other items required by the contract. Both parties entered into the contract with their eyes wide open, aware of the distance, assembly, and installation variations from a usual turn key contract. Thus, this court will not rewrite the contract because of an alleged unilateral mistake. See Glassman Const. Co., Inc., 371 F. Supp. at 1159. The record does not reveal if IFI was actually a manufacturer of the parts or whether it simply assembled and packaged them except clearly, the cable and actuators were spected parts [3] purchased from third parties. Essentially, this wagon, when tendered, was only nuts, bolts and pieces of metal on delivery in Tulsa. It follows that if IFI did not design and did not assemble, its pricing charts were correctly found by the trial court to not create a fitness warranty for the assembled unit to be suitable for the LaBarge project. The use of the term turn key is not a guarantee, and even in a more conventional turn key sense, causation still must be shown between a system's malfunction and the actual supplier's work to prove a defect. See Ray v. Strawsma, 183 Ga. App. 622, 359 S.E.2d 376, 379 (1987), concerning an allegedly defective security system. There is a more directed problem with the implied warranty disclaimer stated on the reverse of invoicing statements. Its publication by billing notice antedates the parties' sales contract. However, we will accept Smithco's analysis of the disclaimer in relation to this issue as stated in its brief: The court below found that Appellee effectively disclaimed any implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. [A]ppellant disagrees with this finding. The only disclaimers were on the back of billing invoices sent to Appellant after the agreement was finalized in October, 1984. Both historically and under the Code, the time for determining the terms of the contract is when the bargain is struck. Disclaimers of warranty are no different. Therefore, unless the disclaimers are disclosed prior to the agreement and agreed upon, thereby made part of the contract, they are not binding. Van Den Broeke v. Bellanca Aircraft Corp., 576 F.2d 582, 584 (5th Cir.1978) While the above is of concern, it should make no difference in the instant case, because Smithco is not relying upon implied warranties, which the court below found to be disclaimed, whether or not such a finding is correct. Smithco relies upon express warranties. Even if the disclaimer relied upon by the court below was effective, it would not control, in the face of express warranties. [Emphasis in original.] Our answer in acceptance of the posture taken by Smithco as to the effectiveness of the disclaimer under the circumstance is also taken with the acceptance of the instructional posture of the trial court that, lacking a design or assembly contract, express warranties were not created under these circumstances. With recognition that the trial court expressly found as a fact that non-conforming material was repaired or replaced, any further departure to reach an award for Smithco on its counterclaim is not demonstrable as trial error requiring reversal. We hold that the findings of fact upon which the judgment was granted are supported by substantial evidence within the compendium of the evidentiary disputes of the participants. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed as to the contract payment dispute.