Opinion ID: 1262742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: udot's counterclaim

Text: Inasmuch as sufficient facts involved in the bidding process and the unbalancing of Young's bid have not as yet been developed, UDOT should be allowed to file its counterclaim in order to raise the factual issues related to the unbalanced bidding, Young's motive behind the unbalancing, Young's knowledge that it had already been paid $226,200 of the riprap work through the unbalanced clearing and grubbing payment at the time it submitted its claim for a supplemental agreement, and any agreements between Young, B & A, and Reliance that affect the liability of UDOT. Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. STEWART, DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., and NORMAN H. JACKSON, Court of Appeals Judge, concur. HOWE, Associate C.J., does not participate herein; JACKSON, Court of Appeals Judge, sat.