Opinion ID: 2229760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Hallam's Liabilities

Text: Hallam also claims that the trial court erred in finding Hallam liable for the removal of concrete from the construction site and for the repair of a conveyor belt. The trial court found that Hallam owed Lange for performing these services because they were not included in the parties' agreement. William Lange testified that after concrete foundations were discovered under the site, Holsing agreed to pay for removing the concrete and backfilling the site. Holsing denied agreeing to pay for the cost of removing the concrete obstructions. Holsing argues that Hallam is not responsible for the site preparation because the agreement's preprinted provisions, which stated Concrete, Electrical Wiring, Gas Hook-up, Fill Sand and Level Site to be furnished by the Buyer, had been stricken by interlineation and initialed by both parties on each purchase order. However, the agreement also included a typewritten insertion located above the stricken clause, which required Hallam to provide a clean level site. The agreement does not appear to be ambiguous. The printed provision was stricken. The typewritten terms control. When an instrument consists partly of written [or typewritten] and partly of printed form, the former controls the latter, where the two are inconsistent. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1216 (Reissue 1989). Accord Niedbalski v. Board of Ed. of Sch. Dist. No. 24, 227 Neb. 516, 418 N.W.2d 565 (1988). For purposes of § 25-1216, typewriting is writing. Mack Investment Co. v. Dominy, 140 Neb. 709, 1 N.W.2d 295 (1941). Therefore, Hallam was properly held liable for $2,205 in site preparation costs. With regard to replacement of the broken conveyor belt, William Lange testified that sometime before his company left the Hallam site, one of Hallam's employees failed to turn on a top conveyor when the spout was running into it and it burnt the elevator conveyor belt in two. William Lange testified that his company repaired the belt at Holsing's request. Holsing testified that he did not remember that the belt broke because of a conveyor not being turned on. He stated that he did not pay the bill from Lange for repairing the conveyor belt because the leg was defective and he considered the bill a little bit high. Given that credible evidence is in conflict on this assigned error, we again give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. We hold that the trial court did not err in finding that Hallam owed Lange $1,407.92 for the replacement of the broken conveyor belt.