Hyde
Hyde v. City of Santa Cruz
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Gray, J.
Respondent, by a written agreement, employed appellant to design a sewerage and sewerage disposal works, to prepare all drawings and the contract for its construction and to supervise and inspect" such construction for a percentage of its cost, payable in progress installments, subject to final determination thirty-five days after completion. Although providing that time was "of its essence, the agreement did not limit the time for perform'ance of these services except as to require appellant to begin the engineering work on a specified date and to furnish the designs, drawings and construction contract on a certain day “so that the work may be let and construction thereof may begin as much prior to January 1, 1927, as shall appear expedient and proper and so that the entire project shall be completed and accepted as ■ far as possible in advance of December 31, 1927”. The construction contract, furnished by appellant and executed by the successful bidder, set December 31, 1927, as the date of completion, defined avoidable and unavoidable delays, required the contractor to pay respondent $100 for each day, after date of com pletion, the work was uncompleted, as liquidated damages…