Thomas N. Grogan v. State of Illinois

THOMAS N. GroGan, d/b/a ILLINI HEAT & Power, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opinion filed March 29, 1978.

HoRSLEY, KIMBLE, Lott & SURMAN, Attorneys for Claimant.

De er ee es ee [*47] WiLuiAM J. Scott, Attorney General; WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Contracts-Modification. Where Claimant encountered unforeseen difficulties in performance of the contract and agreed to perform additional work upon assurances of additional compensation given by persons cloaked with authority to grant such assurances, Claimant will recover additional compensation under theory that there was a modification based upon sufficient consideration or detrimental reliance.

Po os, C.J. This claim arises out of a contract awarded to Claimant for the installation of a 10,000 gallon underground gasoline storage tank in a parking lot of the Ottawa State Garage in Ottawa, Illinois. The contract called for the excavation of the site, installation of the appropriate footings and foundations for the tank, and the return of the parking lot and surrounding sidewalks to their original condition.

The contract was let for bidding, and Claimant’s low bid of $4,970.00 was accepted by the State. At issue is whether Claimant should be paid the additional sum of $13,076.00 to compensate him for the difficulties encountered in completing the work, which were not foreseen by either party when the contract was executed.

The facts are notin dispute. Prior to bidding on the contract in question, the Claimant visited the installation site and made three test borings, each to a depth of eight feet. He testified that he encountered no unusual conditions in his testing.

Claimant commenced work on the site on September 11, 1970. On the first day of excavation, Claimant’s employees encountered solid rock under a portion of the excavation site. They also struck and damaged a sewer which ran diagonally across the excavation site.

The broken sewer and exceptionally heavy rains flood[*50]Pee OE TE TE See REET Pie Or br no te os eee Betas eee cee secs porte cesrseenersri ners seeeeeee not abandon its prior position, upon which Claimant relied in relocating the sewer and excavating the rock from the job site. The record is clear that after the contract in question was executed, Claimant and the State of Illinois agreed to a modification of its terms.

Specifically, Claimant agreed to perform the additional work discovered to be necessary to install the gasoline tank, and Respondent agreed to pay him the additional sum of $13,076.00. This agreement was supported by sufficient consideration and in any event, Claimant clearly relied upon it to his detriment. The parties madea valid modification of their contract, and Claimant is entitle to additional compensation.

The State does not contest the reasonableness of Claimant’s charge for the additional work, and agrees that it was satisfactorily performed.

Claimant is therefore awarded the sum of $13,076.00.