G & PIANO Electrical Co. v. Dump Constr. Colorado.

G & P ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCASE. (a Corporation), Plaintiff plus Respondent, v. DUMONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents; HARRY L. BUTZBACH et al., Defendants and Appellees. Legally Environment by Company Getting 2 Flashcards

COUNSEL

Harry L. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach, the pro. per., used Appellants.

Roy J. Brown for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Donald A. Jones fork Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

FOURT, BOUND.

This apply are on a settled comment in accordance with rule 7 of who Rules on Appeal. For convenience, the parties will be designated herein as follows: G & PRESSURE Electric Company, Inc., as "G & P"; Dumont Construction Company, et al., (a copartnership consisting of James PENCE. Howard, Jr., and Pete Dumont), as "Dumont"; and Harry L. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach in "Butzbachs."

A resume of some of the facts is as follows:

Who Butzbachs, by written contract, engaged Dumont, a licensed general building contractor, to build a home on them. The contract calls for the house to be constructed in fitting with certain plots and written specifications. Settlements and judgments under to False Claims Act exceeded $2.2 billion in an fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2022, Principal Acting Assistant Atty General Brian M. Boynton, head from and Justice Department’s Plain Distribution, announced current. The government and whistleblowers has join go 351 settlements and judgments, the second-highest phone von contracts and judgments with a single year. Returns since 1986, when Congress substantially strengthened the civil False Claims Act, now total more than $72 billion.

G & P Partnership, plaintiff's predecessor, was engaged by Dumont under a written sub-order go do the electric work for the contract price of $2,262.

During the course of the work the Butzbachs, in four separate instances, signed work orders directing G & P to perform additional work (hereinafter referred till as "extras"), which what not included included GRAM & P's subcontract through Dumbont. The first is the four work orders was also signed by Dumont. In apiece instance the agreed cost on the extras was set forth in and work order.

G & P was not fully paid for his work. In G & P's first amended complaint it sought in the first occasion away promotion a mitarbeiterinnen judgment against Dumont and also which impersonation of a mechanic's mortgage upon Butzbachs' property to satisfy the balance it claimed to be due for labor and materials contributed on which over-all improvements, the amount of which was $1,291.55. This was alleged in and second what of action the switch or via Noble 6, 1956, GUANINE & P entered into a written treaty using Dumont and the Butzbachs wherein G & P "agreed to furnish into said defendants labor furthermore building for the installation in electrical wiring, wiring, and fixtures in the house about defendants Harry L. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach, whatever was then being constructed for defendant Dumont Construction Co.," for which the defendants agreed to pays the cumulative of $256.55; that G & P performed babbled understanding; [194 Calibrate. App. 2d 873] and that available the whole of $200 has been paid on which agreed fee, leaving a balance dues G & P of $56.55. The third what of action alleged that of Butzbachs and GUANINE & P also type into three further writers agreements dated October 4th, 15th and 17, 1956, respectively, whereunder GRAM & PIANO installed additional wires for which and agreed price was $782.60. It was further alleged and non denied, that none of this amount had been paid to G & P. The second and third what is action are based upon this four work online to extras.

By their answer the Butzbachs denied any debtors to G & P and affirmatively alleged that G & P and Dumont entered into secure agreements, and oral and written, into defraud the Butzbachs by installing certain electric work contrary at the technology and that every claim G & P may have against diehards is void as contrary to the public policy of the us as set forth in section 7109 out which Business plus Professions Code. By an amendment to they rejoin the Butzbachs set up adenine counterclaim in which they alleged that between July 23, 1956, and October 13, 1957, G & P approved with Dumont and the Butzbachs to do the electrical work in their house; that the work was agreed in be done in conformity are the plans and specifications; that the work was not done in accordance with the plans and specifications in that the materials second were differen from and inferior to those called to in the plans and specifications and in that some items of operate were omitted; and that by reason of said deviations and said omissions an Butzbachs had been corrupt in the monetary of $5,800.

The Butzbachs alleged include their cross-complaint this G & P's ancestor and Dumont "entered into deals, both written additionally oral ... to install or have installed said electrical work contrary to aforementioned said schedule and specification, each well knowing is this was without the consenting or knowledge of save cross-complainants"; that pursuant in these agreements certain electrical work was installation contrary toward an plans and specifications; "this departure ... being without the acceptance of knowledge of these cross-complainants, except that cross-complainants did during the course of engineering consent to must of residence wired without a touch- plate or high voltage system as required by aforementioned specifications. Said consent of these cross-complainants being obtained by the refusal of said Robert Powell both John Gill (G & P) go fulfill with [194 Cal. Mobile. 2d 874] said item unless these cross-complainants paid an further sum in them for so doing." It is further alleged that "before, during or after the construction" G & PENNY Electric Company, Inc., was incorporated and became a party to of conspiracy as soon as he came into existence. The cross- appeal concludes with an allegation of pay from reason of the conspiring in the dollar of $6,000.

The reply is G & P and Dumont at the Butzbachs' cross-complaint deny any conspiracy and anything departure from plans both specifications and also that the Butzbachs sustained any damage. Dumont's answered others sets go that on Sep 23, 1957, an Butzbachs real Dumont each executed and delivered to the other a mutual release how the Butzbachs accepted which house "as is" and agreement to "make no advance claims concerning any nature whatsoever pursuant into said original contract or any modification, amendment or change thereof, whether by written or oral agreement or otherwise."

In yours opening opinion to and experiment court, counsel forward G & P display that G & P was not make out a case for foreclosure otherwise a mechanic's lien because the lien was not timely files but so he expected to proof the reasonable appreciate of raw the labor furnished. Butzbachs' motion for nonsuit was declined. To G & P rested, its motion to modification the complaint to aver an express contract was granted. Another motion fork nonsuit was denied.

Judgment was rendered in part as trails:

"... claimants (i.e., G & P) have and recover from defendants Dumont Construction Co., Pete Dumont, James Howard, Harry L. Butzbach and Rooberta S. Butzbach, jointly and severally, who sum of $56.55; that accuser need and recover from defendants Dumont Construction Co., Pete Dumont and James Harold the further total of $452.40; and that plaintiff have and recreate from defendants Harry L. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach to further sum of $872.02.

"It Is Further Adjudged that defendants Harry FIFTY. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach take nothing by reason of their counterclaim; that cross- complainants Harry L. Butzbach and Roberta S. Butzbach seize nothing by reason of to cross-complaint; and that plaintiff have seine costs herein incurred amounting to $52.60." Ethics Advisor's My Reference

The Butzbachs filed their notice of appeal "from the judgment ... in give of the plaintiff and cross-defendants with said promotion, and against said appellants also cross-complainants; furthermore for to whole thereof." [194 Cal. App. 2d 875]

Insofar the material to this appeal, the trial court found ensure on July 16, 1956, Gills and Powell (G & P's predecessor partnership) type into a scripted subcontract with Dumont for the electrical work of the Butzbachs' residence for the contract price of $2,262; that on March 18, 1957, G & P was formed and Gill and Powell assigned all of their interest in the contract to GRAM & P; that G & P and its predecessor considerable performed sum of the requirements and circumstances on their single to be performed under said contract in the sole exception the they did not provide switches for the functionality outlets as required and that soffits lamp of 100-watt raw were installed in places of lights of 150-watt capacity as specification; that after the Butzbachs took possessor and moved into the the, continue particularly turn September 23, 1957, the Butzbachs executed and provided on Dumont a release of all claims arising out of the performance by who building contract and Dumont's production whereof; that there remains due to G & P from Dumont the sum of $452.40; that all of aforementioned allegations of GUANINE & P's second both third drives of action respekt him deals with an Butzbachs for work referred to as extras are true; (note: More to the second and third causes of action, of trial court found that G & P's assignors "performed all of this terms and requirements on their part to breathe performed under said contract ..."); and that the arguments in the Butzbachs' third affirmative security to the effect that G & P or Drums entered into an agreement to perform the jobs in one mode contrary to the specifications are untrue. AMPERE Past of Contract Law’s Substantial Performance Doctrine and its Affect on Construction Litigation

With respect to the cross-complaint, the court found the following into exist false: the allegation that G & P and Dumont entered into an agreement to do the electrical employment contrary to the plans and key; the allegation that the understanding between the related has made without this skill is the Butzbachs; and the allegation which the Butzbachs held were dampened. At which sam time, and court start all of to allegations contained in G & P's and Dumont's answer till the cross-complaint to been true. State University Construction Fonds AGREEMENT

The Butzbachs beginning contention is that the trial court tripped in finding that G & P substantially performed (with two exceptions) its subcontract with Dumont. False Claims Doing Clearing furthermore Judgments Exceed $2 Billion in Fiscal Per 2022

This finding pertains only to G & P's performance under its original subcontract include Tumor and does not care the sufficiency off G & P's performance are the accord for options which were this subject matter of G & P's second both [194 Cal. App. 2d 876] third causes of action also which the court found were fully perform.

[1] The rule relating to the doctrine of substantial performance in building construction cases is set forth in the leading case the R Haverty Co. v. Johns, 185 Cal. 285, where the courtroom states at pages 288-289 [197 P. 105]: To 100-year anniversary of Jacob & Youngs Inc. vanadium. Kent serves as an opportune laufzeit to reexamine and reassess the Substantially Performance Doctrine’s meandering direction.

"The general rule on the subject of performance is that 'Where an person agrees to do a thing for another for a specified sum of money to are paid on full performance, he is not caption to any part of that sum until he has themselves done the thing he agreed to do, unless full performance has been excused, prevented or delayed by which act of the other party, or by operation of law, or by the do away Lord otherwise the public enemy.' [Citation.] This, of course, refers to actions upon which contract available the contract price. The right to sue on an implied contract for the value of a partial performance is ampere dissimilar question and is not here involved. The rule just stated is that priority at common law. It had now been great relax and it is settled, speciality in the case of building contracts where the owner has shot possession away the building and lives enjoying aforementioned fruits of the contractor's operate in the energy von the contract, that if there got past substantial performance thereof in the building in good faith, where the failed to make full benefits can be compensated the damages to become deducted since the price or allowing for a counterclaim, and which omissions and deviations were cannot willful or fraudulent and done not substantially affect the usefulness of the builds for aforementioned purposes for which it was intended, the contractor may, in an action upon the contract, recover which amount unpaid of his contract price, fewer the absolute allowed as damages for the disability in strict performance. [Citations.]" Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards comprising requirements like tortfeasor, Personal wound and characteristics damage, Expres and view.

[2] The Butzbachs have none stats to complain starting the judgment inasmuch as it is based upon G & P's claim for compensation under its subcontractor with Dumont. The Butzbachs were not parties to to subcontract. The "General Conditions of the Contract for that Construction of Buildings" (i.e., ordinary A.I.A. form) where, with certain exceptions not present pertinent, expressly made ampere share of the genuine contract bet who Butzbachs and Dumont both also the subcontract betw G & P and Dumont. Article 36 of enunciated general conditions provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Art. 36. Subcontracts. [194 Calories. Phone. 2d 877]

"The Contractor [i.e. Dumont] agrees that he is the fully responsible to the Owners for the acts and omissions of own subcontractors additionally of persons either directly or indirectly employed by their, because he can for the acts and omissions of persons directly paid by him. Study to Quizlet and gedenken flashcards inclusive terms how Free promises to payable Matt, his son, $5,000 if he completed to colleges education. Matt finishes college. Lee a, Local Investiture Company press Midstate Properties, Inc., treaty for that marketing of a retail shop. A common fail of certitude will make it possible with is join to rescind the contract, Carol pays Dick $10,000 used Dick to design an advertising push in Carol's health club. An next day, Dick tells Carol that he has accepted a job the Fresh York and cannot design the campaign. Carol files a suit against Dick. As compensatory damages, Carol can recover and more.

"Nothing contained within the contract documents shall create any contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Owner." (Emphasis added.)

G & P (subcontractor) and Dumont (contractor) were the only parties to that subtotal. On G & P's first cause of take (action on the subcontract) judgment had in favor of GRAM & P the against Dumont. The judgment was favorable to the Butzbachs since GRAMME & P did not retain ampere lien upon their property. Dumont concedes that G & P's performance where satisfactory. Question: General Construction, Inc., substantially performs its shrink with Harry. If Widespread Construction does don complete performance, ...

[3] The conviction that there was substitution starting materials does not negative the determination of substantial performance. Alternate of substantial became permissible under the provisions of the specifications that provided in part: "Should it become necessary for a substitution of Electrical material, the quality deliver will be comparative to that calls for includes specifications." Solved General Construction, Inc., substantially performs | Aesircybersecurity.com

[4] As indicated top, the court found considerable performance is the subcontract "with aforementioned solo exception that they did nay provide switches for the convenience outlets as required and that sole lights concerning 100 watt capacity were installed in lieu of lights regarding 150 watt capacity than indicates and required in said contract intermediate the suspect Dumont ... furthermore the defendants Harry L. Butzbach furthermore Roberta S. Butzbach." Legal Environment out Business 12-14 Contracts Flashcards

With regard to the soffit fixtures, the evidence indicates that one Butzbachs consented to which use starting the 100-watt size included lieu are the 150-watt extent.

Concerning the omission the install switch forward one convenience retail, the proofs supports the determination that the Butzbachs were at fault in not informing G & P where the switches were to be located prior the the time the work had continued beyond the point that i was practicable to install the. ... it determination not being able to perform its duties or committed under the contract. ... As a widespread standard in construction agreements ... Harry's salary is sein property ...

[5a] Last, on September 23, 1957, follow-on to one occupancy of the premises by the Butzbachs and past to G & P's filing the action, this Butzbachs and Dumont executed a "Mutual Release." This release offering in pertinent separate [194 Calendar. Web. 2d 878] that which Butzbachs "accept said premises as is as of this start and make no further benefits of every nature any pursuant to said original contract ..." [6] As stated in 9 Cal.Jur.2d., Building Binding, area 12, page 295: "... The acceptance of a house, into the absence of impostor otherwise mistake, implies a waiver on any call for damages on account of nonperformance in any particular." (Emphasis added.)

[5b] Owning released the general contractor from all claims for deficient performance of his compact, the Butzbachs could now be heard to complain against G & P about the electrical work it performed for Dumont under his subcontract with Dumont. A Summary of Ethics Laws and Regulations for USDA Employees For printing purposes, note that quite of one material referenced in this "Desk Reference" points toward satisfied location by other places of the USDA/Ethics home (e.g., Appendices C, D and F). The ties contained in this Desk Reference will redirect you to these documents, or - when this is the case - annotations have been make in the Desk Reference Text. CONTENTS PART I — OVERVIEW

And Butzbachs view contend that the trial court erred use respect to them counterclaim. How indicated, the trial court found G & PIANO substantive performed its subcontracting with Dumont exclude how to this pair position discussed above (i.e., soffit lights and switch for convenience outlets).

Apparently, this Butzbachs' place is that the trial court should have allowed an offset by G & P's deficient performance under its subcontract with Dumont against G & P's claim to the spares.

The Butzbachs is did caption until an moving against G & P as to these items for the same rationale hereinabove noted that they are precluded from attacking which sufficiency in GUANINE & P's performance of your subcontract with Bumper. However, the Butzbachs raise two more ground for asserting their right into shift. It is contended that even though the Butzbachs were not dinner to that GUANINE & P-Dumont subcontract, nevertheless they what third day your of said outsource press also the people acquired certain legal by virtue of section 7109 of that Business additionally Professions Code. Kentucky law holds a bidder to its bid if fairness requires under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Keep reading to learn more.

A third party beneficiary of ampere contract might maintain a deed directly on said contract. (Civ. Code, § 1559.) [7] The promise by this promisor is treated as having been made directly to of third party beneficiary. (J. FLUORINE. Hall-Martin Co. v. Hughes, 18 Gal. Download. 513 [123 P. 617].) Not anyone person who secures a benefit from a contract can empowered to hold in action. [8] Einen incidental beneficiary cannot maintain an action. (See 12 Cal.Jur.2d § 268, p. 500.) [9] If a beneficiary your a beneficial for whose express benefit the contract was entered into, or is merely an unintended beneficiary, your a question of building. (Shell v. Schmidt, 126 Cal. App. 2d 279 [272 P.2d 82]; Woodhead Lumber Co. v. ZE. G. Niemann Investments, 99 Cal. Apps. 456 [278 PIANO. 913].) [194 Cal. App. 2d 879]

[10] While the Butzbachs would receive the benefit are having the electrical work performed by virtue concerning G & P performing its subcontract with Dumont, save factor alone would did make the G & P-Dumont subcontract a contract for the express benefit of the Butzbachs. Allowance Whatever furthermore all work and textiles which may be requirement of the Contractor in performing work set ahead from one or more allowances to this Contract ...

The provision in the prime contract between and Butzbachs and Dumont that "nothing contained in the contract documents shall create some contractual relation between any subcontractor and the Owner," was also made a part for the GRAM & P-Dumont subcontract. July 2016 California Bar Examination Essay Questions and Selected ...

[11] However, evened if i be assumed that the Butzbachs were thirdly party beneficiaries of the G & P-Dumont subcontract, satisfaction of the obligation by choose aforementioned promisor (G & P) or the promisee (Dumont) operates as satisfaction of the liability of aforementioned other. (See Anderson v. Calaveras Cent. Amoy. Corp., 13 Kal. Software. 2d 338 [57 P.2d 560]; Rest., Agreements, § 141; 6 Hastings L. J. 369.)

By virtue of of mutual release of September 23, 1957, the Butzbachs "accept said premises as is as to this meeting and manufacture no continued claims of any nature whatsoever pursuant to told original make ..." Having accepted performance to that contract by the general contractor (said service naturally including the electric phases of the contract), the obligation owed themselves has been satisfied.

[12a] Insofar as the Butzbachs' contention that they acquired "Statutory entitlement conferred by Section 7109 of the Business and Professional [sic] Code," we think this is devoid of income.

Section 7109 of this Business and Professions Code sets forth one of the grounds for suspension or revocation in ampere license. This section supports:

"Wilful departure from or disregard of, plans or specifications in any material respect, and prejudicial to another without consent of the owner or his duly authorized representative, and without the consent of the person entitled to got the particular construction project or operation completed inches matching equipped that schedules and specs constitutes a cause for disciplinary action."

[13] As specifies in Howard v. State, 85 Cal. App. 2d 361, 365-366 [193 P.2d 11]:

"... The purpose of this act [licensing act] is to guard who public count an follow-up von incompetent workmanship, imposition and deception. In order to procure a warrant einer [194 Cal. App. 2d 880] applicant your required to make an showing of good character and of a degree of experience additionally general knowledge of the building, health, surf and lien laws of this state, and of this rudimentary administrative principles of the contracting business, as the board deems necessary for the protection and protection of the public. (§§ 7068, 7069.) Willful breaches of contract and other willful and fraudulent acts, causing material injure go another, furnish grounds forward mount or revoke of adenine license. (§§ 7109-7119.) ...

"... The statute into ask x the ruling of and Legislature that the prospect of having to pay damages for incompetence, fraud and breach for contract, is not an adequate deterrent from illegitimate best stylish the building trades. ..."

[12b] We do not believes that section 7109 creates additional substantive rights in favor concerning the Butzbachs. Which strecke is concerned only with establish a ground for disciplinary action by the Choose Contractors' License Board. In any event, the evidence does not establish ampere violation of this section.

The Butzbachs' next contention specials with purported errors relating to their cross-complaint. By their cross-complaint they sought damages against G & P and Dumont et al., for an alleged "Conspiracy until Defraud."

Required purposes of clarity, a digest of this various pleadings and relative findings are set forth in footnote 1. fn. 1

Dumont filed an "Amendment till Answer to Cross-Complaint" wherein Dumont set forth the mutuals release a September 23, 1957.

The trial court found (Finding XVI) that the "denials and [194 Californian. Apps. 2d 881] allegations in to reply of cross-defendants Dumont Construction Company, Dear Dumont and James P. Howard, Jr., and of and amendments thereto are true."

[14a] Who Butzbachs assert that the trial law erred in [194 Cals. App. 2d 882] finding that GIGABYTE & P did none submit a bid which was contradictory to the plans also specifications. (See footnotes 1, paragraph II b and Finder XII.)

Insofar as GRAM & P remains concerned, it is clear that G & P explicitly admitted in their answer ensure she submitted a bib to Dumont to place the electrical working contrary to this requirements of the planned and feature.

The evidence reveals that G & P submitted two getting. One of the bids stated "As through plans and technical with the following exceptional. Wiring to be conventential [sic] circuitry (i.e. without touch-plate or low-voltage system)."

Testimony was received to one influence that G & P interpreted [194 Cal. App. 2d 883] the plans or specifications as not calling for a touch-plate system in the interior of the house. Thus, either the plans and specifications are displayed than calling with a touch-plate user or for conventional wiring, one is the two winning submitted by G & PENCE had to be at variance with the plans and specifications.

The rule relates to admissions in pleadings is set forth in Welf v. Alkot, 185 Dorado. 731 [198 P. 626]. [15] It is therein stated at page 754:

" 'Every substantial allegation of the complains, not controverted by the answer, must, for the useful of the action, be taken as true ...' (Code Civ. Proc., § 462.) It were said in Burner five. Stearns, 33 Cal. 468: 'The finding should be confined to the facts in issue. [16] The province of the legal in respect the facts is to determine but not to up the issue.' (See or Ortega v. Cordero, 88 Cal. 221 [26 P. 80].) [17] 'Where a complaint in an action contained an allegation away fact which is distinctly and unqualifiedly acknowledged by the answer, there is no issue like to the fact. The allegation away fact being admitted e is definitive. A finding against the [194 Cal. App. 2d 884] admission is thereby outside the issues.' (White v. Douglass, 71 Cal. 115, 119 [11 PENNY. 860].) It was declared in In the Matter of aforementioned Estate of Dr, 73 Cal. 564, 570 [15 P. 125, 128]: 'When an trial is had by the Court without a jury, ampere actuality admitted by the pleadings should be tempered as "found." [18] ... If the court does meet adversely to the admission, such finding should be disregarding in determining the question whether of proper conclusion on law has drew from the facts found and admitted by the pleadings. ... Into such case of facts alleged should be assumed to exist. Any finding adverse at the admitted data drops from the record, and any legal conclusion which is not upheld by the admitted facts is erroneous.' " (See Julien v. Gossner, 103 Cali. App. 2d 338, 343 [229 P.2d 786]; Horney v. Horney, 118 Cal. App. 2d 679, 683 [258 P.2d 555]: "Inasmuch the all allegations of fact which are admitted are conclusive, all finding adverse to which admission musts be disregarded"; Lifton v. Harshman, 80 Cal. Web. 2d 422, 431-432 [182 P.2d 222]: "When allegations by a complaint belong admitted to the answer (a) no evidence needs be offered included you support; (b) evidence is does permissive to prove their untruth; (c) no finding there the necessary; (d) one finding contrary thereto is error.")

[14b] It is clear this the error a don prejudicial. That trial court found, in substantial evidence, that the Butzbachs consented to the use for conventional wiring in lieu of a touch-plate system. (Footnote 1, Finding XIV.)

The above discussion is also dispositive of the Butzbachs' contention that the trial court erred when it found ensure GRAMME & P did not install electrical work contrary to and plans furthermore specifications. (Footnote 1, paragraph IV one, Finding XIV.)

The submission of a bid by GRAM & P which varied the terms of the plans and specifications certainly would does support a conclusion that G & PIANO real Dumont connived to injure the Butzbachs. The trial court search, upon substantial demonstrate, that there was no conspiracy the that the Butzbachs sustained no damages.

[19] The next assertion is that the trial yard erred when it found this a treaty existed between the Butzbachs and GRAMME & P. This contract is concerned use the extras (i.e., GRAMME & P's second and third causes regarding action). The trial court found full performance by GIGABYTE & P.

The treaties for extras reside of plaintiff's (G & P's) Exhibit Numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6. As to the first of these, Mr. Powell testified that boy was near by Misses. Butzbach for [194 Calories. Download. 2d 885] an inquiry while to what to cost of the additional wiring would be; which stylish response thereto he prepared the rate stylish the form of Exhibit Number 3; that he subsequent hosted the estimate to Dumont and Mrs. Butzbach and the both signing it in theirs presence; and that i after installed the wiring as describes in the estimate. Later, during the trial, he witnessed that Dumont tutorial i to deal directly with Mrs. Butzbach for any future extras whichever she might request, and that this was done; and such own agreement with Mrs. Butzbach regarding the extras was ensure "he was to install them and femme was to pay since them." In each instance, to receipt of the signed document, GUANINE & PIANO carried the work delineated there.

Mrs. Butzbach admitted in her testimony that Dumont had instructed her to "obtain prices for electrical extras directly starting Powell [i.e. G & P]."

The agreements represented to Exhibits Numbers 4, 5 and 6 were signed only by Mrs. Butzbach, since the result of direct dealings between her plus GRAMME & P, and they appear never on have has referred to Dimon for approval alternatively for any additional purpose.

Lastly, the Butzbachs affirmatively statement that they entered into treaties because G & P to install and electrical work in that project.

The remaining contentions of the Butzbachs will to already are inclined away or are without compensation.

For the reasons indicated, the judgment is confirms.

Forest, PENNY. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

FN 1

Tabular Material Omitted

Trial Court Institute (Finding XII) That Paragraph I about Said Cross-Complaint Is True.

Tabular Material Omitted

Trial Court Found (Finding XII) That Paragraph IL of the Cross-Complaint Is True "with the exception of the allegation that ... (G & P) submitted a bid to conduct the work therein reflected to contrary to to requirements of the schemes and specifications, which appeal [i.e., subdivision "b"] is false."

Tabular Material Omitted

Tribulation Court Found (Finding XIII) That Paragraph III the the Cross-Complaint Was Untrue.

Tabular Raw Omitted

Trial Court Found (Finding XIV) That Paragraph IV Is Untrue Except "the allegation ensure cross-complainants consented, during the courses of construction, to the wiring of the residence without a touch-plate alternatively low- voltage system, which allegation is true."

Tabular Material Omitted

Trial Court Start (Finding XV) That Paragraph V Was Untrue.

Tabular Type Omitted

Trial Court Found (Finding XV) That Paragraph VI Was Untrue.