Opinion ID: 1429035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: compensation awarded because of substantial miscalculations in the plans: pipes and manholes

Text: The district court found that substantial miscalculations in the plans and specifications had been made as to the depth at which certain pipe was to be installed and as to the height of certain manholes. There is competent evidence in the record to support this finding. The contract provided that the contractor must obtain a change order for payment of any extra work. Cook requested change orders and completed the work under protest. The contract did not contemplate laying the pipe deeper than 30 except in isolated circumstances. [56] As the specifications made it necessary for 38 percent of the pipe to be laid deeper than 30, the law will imply a promise to pay for these extra services. [57] The fault of the plans should not prevent Cook from recovering for labor and services done. [58] When extra work is required because of miscalculations in the plans, the damages are measured by the reasonable value of the additional work and materials furnished. [59] Essentially the only evidence of the losses incurred by Cook for this work was the testimony of Cook and his son. Without objection they testified as to the rental value of the equipment and to Cook's labor costs. The defendants now assert that Cook's figures are too high. They did not seek to refute them at trial through expert testimony, or otherwise, although they had experts testify as to the reasonable value of working with wet, as opposed to dry, dirt and as to the reasonable value of attorney's services. While we acknowledge that the amount of Cook's claimed damages was not shown with absolute scientific precision, we note that quantum meruit does not require mathematical exactness. [60]