Opinion ID: 2611439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Custom and Trade Usage Evidence

Text: Frost Construction contends that the trial court failed to consider custom and trade usage in its determination that a contract was formed. Specifically, it maintains that overwhelming, unrefuted evidence indicated that oral conditions regarding scheduling are common and to be expected. Express contract terms control over industry usage. Smithco Engineering, Inc. v. International Fabricators, Inc., 775 P.2d 1011, 1016 (Wyo.1989). The trial court found that the parties did have a discussion on the matter of scheduling and that is embodied in the proposed subcontract in the language that the subcontractor was to work with the contractor to achieve the earliest possible completion of the project. The trial court properly refused to resort to custom and trade usage on this issue because the contract contained express language regarding the scheduling of the paving work.