Opinion ID: 2317903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the third and fourth counts

Text: Terminal in the third and fourth counts sought damages for alleged fraudulent (arbitrary) action of the engineer in requiring Terminal to construct concrete wall work and concrete slab work contrary to the contract and to plaintiff's schedule of operations. The trial court dismissed these counts on the authority's motion after the entire reception of evidence. R.R. 4:55-2 (formerly Rule 3:54-2), supra, and the Appellate Division affirmed. We are of the opinion that the evidence on this phase of the case disclosed no more than a mere difference of opinion as to the proper spacing of construction joints. Under Article 29 of the Form of Contract the Engineer's determination was binding upon Terminal in the absence of proof of arbitrary, or fraudulent, conduct on its (or his) part. No evidence of arbitrary or grossly mistaken conduct referrable to these claims was introduced. A plaintiff's recovery of damages may not be based upon conjecture and speculation. Cf. Stanley Co. of America v. Hercules Powder Co., 16 N.J. 295, 312 (1954). For the above reasons we are of the opinion that the Appellate Division did not err in affirming the dismissal of the third and fourth counts.