Opinion ID: 393895
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interference With Float-In and Erection Procedures.

Text: 34 S.O.G. claimed increased costs due to interference by the Railroad with the float-in and erection procedures. On December 6, 1972, S.O.G. submitted its float-in and erection plans to the Railroad showing July 1, 1973, as a target date. Approximately two months later, in February 1973, the Railroad replied that its engineering consultants and the Corps of Engineers had serious concerns about certain aspects of the floating system and strongly recommended review and certification of the system by a naval architect. On March 7, 1973, S.O.G. sent a letter and the requested naval architect's report to the Railroad and a copy to its engineering consultants. 35 On March 14, 1973, the Railroad replied in part: 36 We are glad to be advised that you have been assured by your consulting naval architects that all is satisfactory. Receipt is acknowledged of copy of your consultant's report, dated February 15, 1973, per our files. 37 S.O.G. proceeded with its preparations. However, the Corps of Engineers became concerned about high water levels, and the Railroad asked whether S.O.G. would like to postpone float-in for a couple of weeks. S.O.G. replied in the negative to the suggested delay. Only two weeks prior to the target date, on June 14, 1973, S.O.G. received informal word that the Corps of Engineers had objections to its plans. S.O.G. then discovered that the Railroad had not mailed the naval architect's report to the Corps of Engineers until June 11, 1973, over three months after receipt from S.O.G. Numerous changes and additional requirements were then imposed on S.O.G.'s float-in procedure. In addition, the Railroad advised S.O.G. on June 21, 1973, that S.O.G. had failed to give the contractually required 30 days advance notice of the changeover date. Changeover, therefore, could not be effectuated before July 21, 1973. As a result of the required alterations, changeover did not occur until August 11, 1973. 38 S.O.G. argued that the Railroad's failure to timely forward the naval architect's report to the Corps of Engineers operated as a breach of the implied contractual duty of cooperation and noninterference. It is hornbook law that an implied provision of every contract is that neither party to the contract will do anything to prevent performance thereof by the other party or commit any act that will hinder or delay performance. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. v. Summit Constr. Co., 422 F.2d 242, 257 (8th Cir. 1969), cited in Howard P. Foley Co. v. J. L. Williams & Co., 622 F.2d 402, 407 (8th Cir. 1980) (applying Arkansas law); also cited in Investors Thrift Corp. v. Hunt, 387 F.Supp. 517, 524-25 (W.D.Ark.1974), aff'd, 511 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir. 1975) (applying Arkansas law). See also Restatement of Contracts §§ 295, 315 (1932). 39 The Railroad attributed the delay to S.O.G.'s failure to timely obtain the Stage II permit and to S.O.G.'s insufficient progress in changeover preparations. No justification was advanced for the Railroad's delayed forwarding of the naval architect's reports to the Corps of Engineers. 40 The district court found both parties at fault, but denied recovery to the plaintiff, stating: 41 This does not mean that Missouri Pacific is without fault. No satisfactory explanation has been given for its failure to promptly transmit the naval architect's report to the Corps of Engineers. However, this delay was so interwoven with the delays for which plaintiff was responsible, and those caused by other parties, that the Court does not find it of such material consequence as to indicate plaintiff has carried the burden of proof as is necessary to recover for increased costs. 42 San Ore-Gardner v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 496 F.Supp. 1337, 1347 (E.D.Ark.1980). 43 Although the evidence shows that both parties' actions contributed in part to the float-in delay, it fails to preponderate in such a way as to require reversal of the district court's findings. Nonetheless, we believe a sufficient showing of interference by the Railroad to preclude recovery of liquidated damages for this period has been displayed. 44