Opinion ID: 1169482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: inconsistent reasoning

Text: The majority opinion asserts that appellee had the power to order the refabrication and thus bind the city to pay appellant for appellee's mistake  subject to first presenting a change order. This assertion is founded on a principal-agent relationship between the city and appellee, which it is said relieves appellee from any responsibility for his mistake. The majority opinion buttresses this analysis by referring to language in the subcontract to which appellant was a party requiring appellant to perform according to the plans and specifications of appellee and to appellee's full satisfaction. Yet, with all of this authority in appellee, the majority opinion does not recognize that the work done to correct appellee's mistake was actually doing the work to appellee's full satisfaction. Nor does the majority opinion recognize the inconsistency of this power to bind the city with the lack of power to waive the requirement for a prior written order to correct appellee's mistake. And this brings us to my third disagreement with the majority opinion.