Court Opinion

ID: 9584260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:46:05.670923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:19.695627
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Chief Justice,
with whom COMPTON, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree with the conclu-' sion that Wick’s damage claim against Ke-nai must be measured by the liquidated damages provision of the prime contract.
The damages Wick suffered as a result of Kenai’s delay in performance bear no relationship to the liquidated damages ASHA had been willing to accept for being delayed in occupying the courthouse. Whereas ASHA’s delay damages arose solely from delayed occupancy, Wick’s claim for delay damages included the liquidated damages assessed by ASHA under the prime contract, increased materials, labor and overhead costs of Wick’s business operations as contractor, and money damages owed by Wick to other subcontractors who suffered delay damages as a result of Kenai’s untimely performance. And, in contrast to ASHA’s damages for delayed occupancy, Wick’s actual damages attributable to Kenai’s breach were both easily forseeable and readily calculable.
For these reasons, I conclude that Wick and Kenai did not intend to adopt the liquidated damages figure as the measure of damages for the breach of their agreement. On the contrary, I read the incorporation clause as incorporating only the substantive provisions of the prime contract governing building specifications and the like. Thus, I would hold that Wick is entitled to seek actual damages for the harm it suffered as a result of Kenai’s breach.