Opinion ID: 1321928
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: meeting of may, 1981

Text: Present at the meeting on behalf of Hunter was Jimmy Hunter; on behalf of Brantley, Sharpton; and on behalf of the Owner, Larry W. Setzler, its engineer and on-site manager for the project, and George M. Collins, its employee designated to insure the electrical work followed the plans and specifications. The versions of Jimmy Hunter, Setzler and Collins as to what transpired at the meeting are essentially identical. On the other hand, Sharpton denied any recollection of such a meeting in both his pre-trial deposition and initial testimony at the trial. In recall testimony, after Setzler, Collins and Jimmy Hunter had testified fully concerning its events, he did admit to a recollection of the meeting. Section 4.10 of the general contract required Brantley to prepare an itemized progress schedule giving the sequence and dates for all major stages of the Work. It then required Brantley to so regulate his operations ... as to maintain a program in accordance with the schedule or such revisions thereof as are approved by the Owner.  [Emphasis supplied]. Recognizing the requirement in § 4.10 that schedule revisions receive approval of the Owner, Hunter sought permission of the Owner to install conduit prior to roof completion. Setzler, representing the Owner, granted a conditional approval: A. I then told the  speaking to Mr. Sharpton  only speaking from the Port Authority to the general contractor  I told him (Sharpton) if he would take responsibility for the conduit going in at this time that, yes, I would allow it to go in. Q. When you say he take responsibility, who did you mean by he? A. Meaning Brantley Construction Company. [Emphasis and parenthesis supplied]. Jimmy Hunter, concerned not only with the Owner's expressed prerequisite that Brantley accept responsibility, but also with damages Hunter might sustain from construction deficiencies arising by reason of installing the conduit out of the scheduled sequence, then discussed the situation with Sharpton, as related by Setzler: Q. What was Mr. Sharpton's response? A. Well, Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Hunter then discussed the situation between the two of them, and Mr. Hunter asked Mr. Sharpton to take the responsibility and the answer was no. Q. What was your understanding as a result of this meeting about whether Hunter Brothers was going to install the conduit at that time? A. It was my interpretation from what took place after that the conduit would not go up at the present time. Q. When was your understanding that the conduit would start going up? A. As scheduled by the construction progress schedule at that time. Q. And what did the construction progress schedule say or show with respect to the installation of the conduit? A. Well, it was a bar chart type of construction progress, but that type of work would have happened late in the project and after the roof went on. Q. Were you aware that the conduit was not being installed in June and July of 1981? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was that of any surprise to you? A. Not since the meeting in May, no sir. [Emphasis supplied]. Collins, the Owner's other representative at the meeting in May, testified: Q. Okay. Do you remember meeting in May to discuss the status of the  of what could be done at that point in time? A. Yes, I do.     Q. And what transpired at that meeting? A. Mr. Hunter was concerned that Brantley wanted to install the electrical conduits on the structure of the building before the roof was completed. At that time, Mr. Seitzler [sic] told Brantley we have no objection to the conduit being installed provided you or your subcontractor take the responsibility for any damage due to rust or anything. Mr. Sharpton's response was that they didn't take responsibility for anything. Q. What was your understanding as a result of that meeting about the installation of conduit? A. It was my understanding that the conduit wouldn't go in until after the roof was on. [Emphasis supplied]. The evidence is clear that Brantley's insistence on conduit installation without regard to roof completion was based upon its concern that late completion of the project would result in assessment of liquidated damages. However, the evidence is equally clear that roof completion precedes conduit installation for two reasons of practice in the construction trade. First, the roof provides the cover to insure against conduit rust from rain and the elements and second, conduit is often damaged by workmen while installing the roof. These were Hunter's concerns, which were underscored and heightened by the undisputed testimony that Collins specifically instructed Jimmy Hunter not to install the conduit prior to roof completion. They were also the Owner's concerns and are reflected in Setzler's refusal to approve Hunter's installation of conduit prior to roof completion, unless Brantley would assume responsibility for adverse consequences. Collins testified specifically to Owner's concern about damage to the conduit from installation prior to roof completion. Admittedly, Brantley offered testimony to the contrary. In the end, however, the legal propriety of Hunter's conduct is not determined by a factual finding on the weight of this conflicting evidence but, rather, upon the Owner's refusal to approve the sequence change in Brantley's progress schedule. In his order the Master states, The Plaintiff, although no objection was raised by the South Carolina Ports Authority , refused to commence installation of the conduit unless Brantley would take responsibility therefor. Tr. 763 [Emphasis supplied]. The italicized portion of this statement, although no objection was raised by the South Carolina Ports Authority, is a contradiction of the record. The very essence of Ports Authority's position was its expressed objection to Hunter's early commencement of conduit installation unless Brantley would take responsibility therefor.