Court Opinion

ID: 9726157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:35:03.214305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:02.037859
License: Public Domain

FILES, P. J.
Dissenting. I would affirm the judgment.
The crucial issue of fact was whether Strauss manifested assent to Central’s counter proposal to delete the language “all provided that Contractor has received payment from the owner.” The trial court found it did not. Therefore payment of the last installment to Central was not due until the county paid Strauss. Although Central was legally entitled to serve a stop notice, the effect was to postpone the event from which interest would begin to run.
The filing of this action seeking interest and attorney fees was both premature and uncalled for. In disregarding the factual basis of the trial court’s judgment, the majority will unjustly mulct Strauss for thousands of dollars in attorney fees.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 28, 1979.