Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: custom of the industry argument

Text: Cook urged below that, despite certain contract disclaimers, the State had an absolute duty to disclose in the contract plans and specifications its knowledge of any difficulties to be encountered. [16] The district court agreed, finding that it is customary in such industry to advise a contractor of any serious problems which will be encountered in the work, if known. Where a contract is complete in itself and is unambiguous, the contract's language is the only legitimate evidence of the parties' intent. [17] The trial court must first make the requisite finding of ambiguity before it can look at the custom of the industry to determine the parties' obligations. [18] Even though the result may be harsh, a party will be bound by the unambiguous terms of a contract. [19] Although the contract documents themselves did not furnish Cook with all the information the State possessed, he cannot maintain an actionable claim for concealment against a public hirer of a contractor unless either one of two tests is met: [1] there is a finding of misrepresentation [20] or [2] the facts allegedly withheld are not discoverable through the investigation contemplated by the contract. [21]