Opinion ID: 2111177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The appeal from the judgment for Bimblich.

Text: Among the disputes between the parties was the question as to whether Bimblich knew in advance that air-conditioners to be installed in the houses were five-ton, five-horsepower units. The trial judge found that Bimblich had not been shown either the air-conditioning proposal or contract, and did not learn until after the work was well in progress that Shapiro planned to install five-ton units which would require higher amperage service than that called for in Bimblich's contract; that he then called on Shapiro to pay a higher sum for the additional work and material, which Shapiro refused to do. The trial judge, therefore, found that the inability of plaintiff to finish his work was due to the defendant's change in the terms of the original contract without a proper adjustment of the increase in cost thereof, and that it was the fault of the defendant under all the facts that the contract with Bimblich was broken. The Court further finds that the computation of the electric service of 100 ampere was by defendant and agreed to by both parties and that plaintiff Bimblich entered into the contract on that basis and in accordance with computations made by the defendant. The court further found that Bimblich's failure to install certain fixtures and complete certain work on the contract was due both to the dispute between the parties and to the failure of defendant to furnish the fixtures. Certain extra work not required by the contract was found to have been ordered by Shapiro for which Bimblich was allowed recovery. Shapiro challenges the correctness of the findings concerning the air-conditioning. He contends that the findings from which the trial judge concluded that Bimblich had no knowledge of the type of air-conditioning to be used were not supported by the evidence, and that certain contrary findings should have been made. No useful purpose would be served by attempting a summary of the exhaustive testimony given at the trial. It is sufficient to say that though the testimony was conflicting in many respects, there was substantial evidence to support the findings made in the trial court. This disposes of Shapiro's contention that Bimblich was barred from recovery because he had impliedly warranted that the electrical service was sufficient for the requirements of the houses including five-ton, five-horsepower air conditioners. The evidence by no means compelled a finding that Bimblich knew, or should have known, that units of that size were to be used in the houses; indeed it warranted a finding that he was never told of the tonnage or horsepower, and discovered these facts much later. Nor was the trial judge required to find, as appellant seems to suggest, that an established custom in  the trade required Bimblich to make independent inquiry as to the electrical requirements of the equipment to be installed. He had a right to rely on the builder for such information. Shapiro also assigns as error the failure of the trial court to make certain other findings of fact. These include findings that an additional sum should have been included in the counterclaim, that there was a wilful breach of contract, and that the work was not performed properly. These assignments are without substance. The findings of the trial court, when weighed against all the evidence in the case, were sufficient to inform the parties as to the basis of the decision. Shapiro also contends that no recovery should have been allowed to Bimblich for extras because the contract provided that No statements for extras will be honored    unless these statements are in accordance with written orders signed by the General Contractor and the Subcontractor. The trial court found that the extras were performed in accordance with oral orders of Shapiro or his superintendent. This was not denied by Shapiro. The allowance for extras was therefore proper. Such a provision in a written contract does not prevent the parties from making separate parol agreements regarding extras. Continental Casualty Co. v. Schaefer, 9 Cir., 173 F.2d 5, certiorari denied, 337 U.S. 940, 69 S.Ct. 1517, 93 L.Ed. 1745, Macri v. United States, 338 U.S. 820, 70 S.Ct. 63, 94 L.Ed. 497; Teer v. George A. Fuller Co., 4 Cir., 30 F.2d 30; Bartlett v. Stanchfield, 148 Mass. 394, 19 N.E. 549, 2 L.R.A. 625. See also, Mazza v. Russell, 47 App.D.C. 87.