holding that contractor entitled to recover for damages where increased expenses incurred by contractor were a “direct result” of the reliance on the misrepresented bid specification
How later courts described this case
- holding that contractor entitled to recover for damages where increased expenses incurred by contractor were a “direct result” of the reliance on the misrepresented bid specification
- independent testing to verify accuracy of PennDOT’s representation impractical due to size of project and impracticality of testing, as well as superior knowledge of PennDOT
- delay was caused by a failure to make a critical decision in a reasonable and timely manner
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The opinion authored by Mr. Justice Zappala too broadly construes the concept of constructive fraud recognized by this Court in Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Smith, 350 Pa. 355 , 39 A.2d 139 (1944) (actual knowledge of misrepresentations present). In the instant case, there is simply no evidence that PennDOT knew that sub *348 stantially more than half of the conduit was not reusable; hence, an inference of fraud has no factual basis. Appellant knew that the additional trenching would be paid for at the contract unit price unless an increase was negotiated when the additional work was ordered. By failing to seek such a price adjustment, appellant bore the risk of increased costs.