Fact: Spearin entered into a contract with the Government to build a dry dock at Brooklyn Navy Yard, in accordance with Government prepared plans and specifications. To proceed with the dry dock construction, Spearin had to relocate a portion of a sewer which ran through the site. Spearin completed the relocation of this section of sewer pursuant to the prescribed requirements of the plans and specifications, and the Government approved and accepted the work. Nearly one year after the relocation of the sewer a dam in a connecting sewer, which was not shown on the Government’s plans and specifications, caused the relocated sewer to flood and burst; consequently, flooding the area excavated for the dry-dock. Spearin promptly notified the Government that it would not resume operations under current conditions unless the Government assumed the responsibility for the damages or remedied the existing condition. The Government refused either options, annulled the contract and re-assigned the contract to other contractors. Spearin has been paid $129,758.32 and owed another $81.180.86 which the
…show more content…
Spearin performed the preliminary required task of relocating a sewer (without knowledge of the dam’s presence) and the job was approved and accepted by the Government. Since the dam inside the sewer was not shown in any of the Government’s plans and specifications, Spearin could not be held responsible for the consequent damages. The subsequent flooding of the excavated site occurred due to the Government’s negligence of providing this information to Spearin. Hence, the Court determined that Spearin was excused from continuing performance because the Government breached its implied warranty to Spearin that the plans and specifications were adequate; Also by annulling the contract, the Government was liable for all damages resulting from the
Spearin performed the preliminary required task of relocating a sewer (without knowledge of the dam’s presence) and the job was approved and accepted by the Government. Since the dam inside the sewer was not shown in any of the Government’s plans and specifications, Spearin could not be held responsible for the consequent damages. The subsequent flooding of the excavated site occurred due to the Government’s negligence of providing this information to Spearin. Hence, the Court determined that Spearin was excused from continuing performance because the Government breached its implied warranty to Spearin that the plans and specifications were adequate; Also by annulling the contract, the Government was liable for all damages resulting from the