Court Opinion

ID: 9738586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:57:20.74824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.142547
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
If I could agree that this is an appeal involving the review of fact issues pursuant to Rule 52(a), NDRCiv.P, I would concur with the majority one hundred percent. The effect of the trial court’s decision in this case was to rewrite Section 105 of the specifications without applying any of the provisions of Title 9 of the North Dakota Century Code which permit such a thing. That takes it oüt from under Rule 52(a).
When this court said in City of Granville v. Kovash, Inc., 118 N.W.2d 354, 359 (N.D.1962), that the purpose of a provision in a contract making a project engineer the final judge “is to prevent any delay,” it was obviously partly right. It was even more correct when it added that it is best that disagreements be settled “by someone who is qualified.” But both statements have to be considered judicial editorializing.
It was Mandan Acres that decided that an engineer, not the district judge, was qualified to settle disagreements on this project. If Cofell’s had known that it had to have a work stoppage before the engineer’s decision was binding, I’m sure it could have been arranged. This case will form a precedent that will invite delays by contractors. I would reverse the judgment.