Opinion ID: 1173856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The logs of the test holes

Text: The plans and specifications included the logs of two test holes. The logs show that the city drilled two test holes on the site, which passed through various layers of sand. Undisputed evidence, however, demonstrated that the log of test hole No. 1 erroneously reported the soil to a depth of 14 feet as coarse sand with clay binder although the material actually discovered was coarse sand with minute binder. Likewise, the log of test hole No. 2 listed 26 to 35 feet as sand with clay binder although the material actually encountered at that depth was sand with minute binder. Mr. Maurseth, a soil mechanics engineer, testified that clay binder meant, in the trade, a sufficient amount of clay to cause the sand particles to adhere cohesively; minute binder meant the binding material is present in such minute quantities that it is inadequate to stabilize the sand. Being less cohesive, sand with minute binder is much more likely to cave in. (2) We do not accept defendant's contention that the trial court erred in submitting the interpretation of the logs to the jury. Although defendant urges that under Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839], it is ... a judicial function to interpret a written instrument unless the interpretation turns upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence, the interpretation of the contract here depends on the credibility of Mr. Maurseth's testimony that sand with clay binder implies not a minute amount of clay, but an amount sufficient to give significant stability to the formation. The trial court properly relegated that question of credibility for decision by the jury. (See Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282, 294 [74 Cal. Rptr. 521, 449 P.2d 737].) (3) Attached to the test-hole logs was a caveat: The test-hole information on these plans shows conditions found only at the date and location indicated. Bidders are cautioned that the city in no way warrants that such information is representative of conditions at any other location, or at any other time. Groundwater levels, particularly, are subject to change. Although defendant contends that this note effectively disclaims any warranty, we find, on closer examination, that the warranty and the disclaimer pass each other without collision. The warranty describes the subsurface conditions at the test holes, but says nothing about conditions elsewhere on the site. The disclaimer states that the test-hole information ... shows conditions found only at the date and location indicated, and cautions bidders that the city does not warrant that the data is representative of other locations, but it in no way disclaims the accuracy of the test-hole logs. [2] Reading the two together, we conclude that the bidder takes the risk in making deductions from accurate test data, but the city retains responsibility for any inaccuracy in the data. (See Wunderlich v. State of California (1967) 65 Cal.2d 777, 784-785 [56 Cal. Rptr. 473, 423 P.2d 545]; Chris Nelsen & Son, Inc. v. City of Monroe (1953) 337 Mich. 438, 446 [60 N.W.2d 182].) (1b) Whether the misrepresentation of clay binder for minute binder was a material misrepresentation, whether plaintiff relied on it, and whether that reliance was reasonable, all present disputed questions of fact properly submitted to the jury. The jury's verdict impliedly resolved these issues in plaintiff's favor.