stating that, as the first element, the contractor must prove “the extent of the delay with a reasonable degree of accuracy”
How later courts described this case
- stating that, as the first element, the contractor must prove “the extent of the delay with a reasonable degree of accuracy”
- stating the second element the contractor must prove is that “the delay was caused solely by the [owner’s] actions”
- providing that, as the third element, the contractor must prove that “the delay caused specific, quantifiable injury to the contractor”
- noting that liquidated damages "denotes the sum a party to a contract agrees to pay if he breaks some [contractual] promise’’
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disapproved on other grounds by A. Scott Enterprises v. City of Allentown, Aplt., 636 Pa. 249 (2016)
898 A.2d 1145, 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), disapproved of on other grounds by A. Scott Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Allentown, 142 A.3d 779
The opinion
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
President Judge COLINS.
I dissent. I cannot conclude, as does the majority, that the State System’s conduct in -this matter was vexatious within the intent of the statute. Therefore I must dissent from that portion of the majority opinion.
I join with the majority in their resolution of all the remaining issues.