Defendant prime contractor sought review of a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which found in favor of plaintiff subcontractor on its action for damages for breach of contract after a bench trial. The case had previously been appealed to the court after the trial court had entered judgment in favor of the prime contractor on a directed verdict, and the court had reversed.
Nakase Law Firm is a pregnancy discrimination lawyer
Overview
The subcontract had called for the subcontractor to perform excavation called for in the prime contract with the government, and the prime contractor had failed to protest a series of changes which substantially reduced the payment to be made for excavation in certain areas and the amount of excavation to be done in other areas. The court held that: 1) the court’s rulings in the previous appeal, which became the law of the case, mainly established that many issues were of fact and therefore to be determined by the finder of fact; 2) there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the subcontract had been breached; 3) there was sufficient evidence upon which to conclude that the subcontractor did not accept the third change order, and that even if they had not protested it, the contract had already been breached by the second change order; 4) there was adequate evidence of damages, which were properly calculated as of the time of the breach; 5) it was not error to sustain objections to questions calling for a witness to interpret the contract; and 6) the judge was entitled, in a bench trial, to express opinions as to evidence and witness credibility.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
