Court Opinion

ID: 9751659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:44:30.458786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:54.659600
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(concurring).
The specifications in this case stated that $1.25 was the prevailing rate for carpenters. The Wage Adjustment Board found that the prevailing rate for carpenters doing “water front work” was $1.421/2, and not $1.25, and that most of the carpenters on plaintiff’s job were doing “water front work.” As a result plaintiff was required to pay this higher rate.
There was, therefore, a misrepresentation in the specifications as to the prevailing rate for the carpenters on plaintiff’s job. Since plaintiff was compelled to pay the higher rate, I think it is entitled to recover for the misrepresentation, inasmuch as its bid had been made upon the basis of the $1.25 rate. This is so, I think, independent of whether or not the action of the Wage Adjustment Board was a sovereign act.
For this reason I concur.
I am authorized to say that Judge MADDEN agrees with this opinion.