Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: misrepresentation as to existing soil conditions

Text: A contract clause which requires a contractor to rely upon its own inspection does not control when there is a finding of misrepresentation as to existing conditions. [22] The district court's finding of misrepresentation was based upon the 50 soil borings included in the contract plans and specifications. The court found that the extra work was caused by Cook's detrimental reliance upon test borings which Defendants submitted and did not indicate the actual moisture conditions. [23] This court faced the problem of misrepresentation in construction contracts in the 1931 case of Maney v. Oklahoma City. [24] In Maney a positive representation was made by the City that no rock was to be encountered except in negligible quantities. The defendant City was held responsible for the costs of the extra work caused by excavating the rock as the undisputed proof showed that the bidders did not have sufficient time to make their own borings. [25] The teaching in Maney suggests that, when the bidder is allowed insufficient time to make a personal study, the state cannot invoke exculpatory clauses to exonerate itself from liability. [26] Other jurisdictions have applied a variety of tests to a contractor's claim of misrepresentation in the public contract. [27] We adopt here the two-prong test of Robert E. McKee, Inc. v. City of Atlanta [28] which logically follows existing Oklahoma law. This test requires that either of two conditions must be present in a claim for recovery based on misrepresentation in a public construction contract [29]  (a) the bidder could not have discovered the correct facts about the conditions through reasonable investigation prior to the contract or (b) the underlying data actually provided to the bidder was inaccurate.