Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagesliabilityappealtrialverdictwrongful terminationcorporationjury trialjury instructions
contractdamagesliabilityappealtrialverdictmotion

Related Cases

Stocki v. Nunn, 351 P.3d 911, 2015 WY 75
View Case »
Honey Dew Associates, Inc. v. M & K Food Corp., 241 F.3d 23, 57 U.S.P.Q.2d 1875
View Case »
Rindlisbaker v. Wilson, 95 Idaho 752, 519 P.2d 421
View Case »
Roxas v. Marcos, 89 Hawai‘i 91, 969 P.2d 1209
View Case »
Capital Steel Co., Inc. v. Foster and Creighton Co., 264 Ark. 683, 574 S.W.2d 256, 25 UCC Rep.Serv. 1349
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dravo Corporation v. L.W. Moses Company, 6 Wash.App. 74, 492 P.2d 1058

Facts

Dravo Corporation entered into a construction contract with Metro for a sewage disposal project, subcontracting a portion of the work to L. W. Moses Company. Disputes arose over the completion of the work, with Dravo claiming Moses failed to meet deadlines and Moses asserting that delays were caused by Dravo's actions. After a jury trial, the court dismissed Dravo's claims and ruled in favor of Moses on its counterclaim, leading to Dravo's appeal and Moses' cross-appeal.

On June 6, 1966, Dravo entered into a construction contract with Metro for construction of a sewage disposal project which included construction of a trunk sewer, a portion of which ran through a navy supply depot crossing under the navy's fuel farm and considerable railroad trackage.

Issue

The main legal issues included whether Moses was unjustified in abandoning the subcontract and whether the court erred in its jury instructions regarding the completion date and damages.

Dravo contends that Dravo is entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of liability of Moses Company and St. Paul because Moses was not terminated by Dravo and was therefore unjustified in abandoning his subcontract.

Rule

The court applied principles regarding contract termination, the sufficiency of evidence to support a jury verdict, and the standards for awarding damages in cases of wrongful termination.

The question of what constitutes notice of termination must be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case.

Analysis

The court found that there was substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict that Moses was wrongfully terminated and that the verbal statement made by Dravo's representative constituted sufficient notice of termination. The court also determined that the jury instructions provided were appropriate and did not warrant a new trial.

After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, all competent evidence favorable to the party who obtained the verdict must be taken as true and that party must be given the benefit of every favorable inference which reasonably may be drawn from the evidence.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Moses on the issue of liability but reversed the decision regarding the damages awarded, indicating that the jury's award was excessive and not supported by the evidence.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Who won?

Moses prevailed in the case, as the court found that Dravo's claims against him were not substantiated and that he was wrongfully terminated, justifying his cross-claim for payment.

Moses, in his cross-appeal, assigns error to that action of the trial court which denied Moses their judgment for costs and disbursements and to its action in granting a new trial and setting aside the jury verdict as to damages awarded Moses in their cross-claim against Dravo.

You must be