Lundgren

Lundgren v. Freeman

Good Law
307 F.2d 104·6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 945
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 1962No. 17232California8,078 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duniway, J.

Lundgren, a building contractor, appeals from an order and a summary judgment, and School District No. 5 of Baker, Oregon, (“school district”) appeals from two judgments, in an action brought by Lundgren against school district and the architectural firm of Freeman, Hayslip and Tuft (“architects”). We are affirming as to all matters appealed, except the time as of which interest is allowed, and the summary judgment in favor of architects. As to these, we are reversing.

On August 7 and September 29, 1950, Lundgren entered into written contracts with school district to construct a high school and shop and a swimming pool and bathhouse. On June 27, 1952, a month after Lundgren had notified architects that the high school and shop were about ready for final acceptance, school district notified Lundgren that it was terminating his employment because of total breach. This was done on the advice of architects, who claim to have acted pursuant to Article 19 of the General Conditions of both contracts between Lundgren and school district.

*108 School district refused to pay Lund-gren the amount claimed by him to be due on the contract, $55,834.01. It also refused to pay the amount…

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.