Opinion ID: 1772161
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the lower court erred in denying the counterclaim of u.r.s. company.

Text: Certain invoices submitted by U.R.S. were refused payment by the airport authority and U.R.S. claims that the money was wrongfully withheld from paying them. (1) Exhibit P-26 is for the balance of the design fee. That fee was $190,449.00 and there was only a small amount owing on it. Wayne Lindquist, executive director of the airport authority during the construction of the terminal, testified that this invoice was not paid because the terminal building was located approximately twenty feet from its designated location and the incorrect position of the building required the aircraft parking apron to be reduced in size, probably requiring enlargement later and criticism from the FAA. That testimony was undisputed. (2) The design fee for interior/exterior access road was not paid by the airport authority because there was a difference in the alignment of the pipes because of a design error by U.R.S. Since the building as designed was twenty feet off design, the plumbing as laid by the plumbing contractors failed to match up to the building. The water lines were required to be repaired and rerouted, which the airport authority had to pay for. Testimony was introduced to that effect and the amount involved was $5,967.00. On the issue of fact, the chancellor was not manifestly wrong. (3) Exhibit E to P-26 was for survey work on access roads and is in the sum of $10,324.90. U.R.S. conducted survey work in order to bring roads into the airport terminal. It was discovered that this survey work had used incorrect points of reference and would bring a certain road through property that the airport authority did not own. Because of the error, the survey work had to be redone, and the airport authority offset that cost by the amount owing to U.R.S. for the original survey work conducted. (4) U.R.S. complains of nine (9) invoices which deal with the payment of the salary of inspector Edward Craig. The total of the invoices is $2,438.82. Craig's salary was set at $25,000 and U.R.S. attempted to implement a raise for him. Airport authority refused to pay any sum over $25,000, which had been set. The chancellor was not manifestly wrong in refusing that claim of U.R.S. We are of the opinion that the lower court did not err in denying the counterclaim of U.R.S. Company and assigned Error III is rejected. There being no reversible errors in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur. BLASS, J., not participating.