K & F Construction v. Los Angeles City Unified School District

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 3d 1063·176 Cal. Rptr. 842·1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 2191
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 1981Civ. 60963California223 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kingsley, J.

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant school district to construct a school building. The contract called for a total consideration of $950,000 and required that construction be completed within 300 days. Thereafter, the district issued a series of change orders, the completion of which required an additional 41 working days. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time for that period, and has been paid the agreed cost of the additional work, including a 15 percent item for its overhead. It here claims to be entitled to what it calls “Daily Job Costs,” consisting of its costs to keep the job site open and available for the 41-day period and for the cost of its on-site job superintendent. The trial court denied the additional sums. We agree.

Plaintiffs contention is rebutted by the express language of the contract between the parties. Subparagraph (c) of section 12 of that contract provides as follows:

We can see in that provision no ambiguity; if there be any, section 1654 of the Civil Code requires that it be construed adversely to plaintiff.

Since the contract itself determines the only issue before us, we need not, and do not, determine the dispute over…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.