Opinion ID: 1060128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tart Lumber Company, Inc. v. Drewer

Text: Development Corporation In Tart, Drewer's takeoffs clearly constituted requests for bids, which, once accepted, created a contract for materials for that construction project covered by each takeoff. Here, the materials furnished under each request were part of a single construction project, as is shown by the fact that each invoice referenced a specific parcel. Moreover, Tart's salesman testified that in most cases the materials were delivered in bulk shipments to the individual parcels and that he regularly travelled to the job sites because we were dealing in such large quantities, I wanted to make sure . . . the deliveries were dropped in the correct locations. The salesman testified that materials were supplied under fill-in orders only where either the takeoff was incorrect or some of the material [had been] broken. Moreover, when a fillin was requested, it does not appear that any competitive process was used. Rather, Drewer simply contacted Tart and requested that the materials be supplied. Tart then supplied the fill-in materials under an invoice referencing the specific parcel. 5 5 In certain instances, Tart supplied material to Drewer without referencing specific parcels, and these materials were billed as part of the combined statements sent to Drewer. However, Tart excluded the charges for these materials when Thus, once Drewer accepted Tart's bid on a takeoff, the deliveries under that account, including those materials supplied as fill-ins, became part of a single, continuous contract related to a specific construction project. The fact that Tart combined invoices for multiple parcels in unitary billing statements does not preclude a finding that the materials were delivered to the individual parcels under separate continuing contracts. Nothing in the record suggests that the combined statements were used for any purpose other than the convenience of the parties. Moreover, when it filed its memoranda of mechanic's liens, Tart was able to segregate the charges for the materials furnished for each parcel, in a manner similar to a permissible apportioning of an account between related properties under a single contract. See Lincoln, 241 Va. at 439-40, 403 S.E.2d at 689-90. Accordingly, we hold that the chancellor erred in ruling that each delivery of materials constituted a separate contract.