April 19, 2004

CONTRACTOR LOSES CLAIM FOR PAYMENT FOR ADDITIONAL WORK NOT COVERED BY CONTRACT

State of Ohio, Noble County, In the Court of Appeals, Seventh District

Contractor performed work not contemplated under its contract and subsequently requested payment for the additional work. The party awarding the contract denied the request for additional payment and the contractor sued. The trial court found, and the appellate court agreed, that the contract's language was unambigous and required preapproval for additional work, thus, the contractor was not entitled to additional payment. The court also rejected the contractor's unjust enrichment claim because the contract covered all of the allegedly inequitable conduct.

Subscribers: click here for the full story

Non-Subscribers: click here to subscribe

Pay per view ($4.00)