Court Opinion

ID: 9705619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:14:07.059064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:13.039449
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Hoffman, J.:
I dissent. In this case the specifications and drawings given to appellant and other bidders for the purpose of obtaining bids contained the provisions with regard to the removal and the replacement of the skylight. Six days before the bids were submitted, Supplemental Bulletin No. 2, which deleted this provision, was issued. Appellant undoubtedly relied on this provision in submitting its bid.
Bulletin No. 2 clearly deletes the only provision in the specifications which specifically spelled out that the skylights were to be removed. I find no ambiguity in this provision.
Even if an inconsistency had been created by Bulletin No. 2, however, these later provisions should su*503persede any earlier provisions' contained in tlié-specifications or drawings. Thompson v. Craft- 238 Pa.'-125) 85 A. 1107 (-1913). This is especially1 true in the instant case, since any ainbiguity. in the contract was-created by appellee who drafted it. Home Builders of Mercer County, Inc. v. Dellwood Corporation, 379 Pa. 255, 108 A. 2d 731 (1954):7-
Weight, J., joins' in this dissehtirig'ópínidn7