 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyman Lumber of Wisconsin3/29/2005
v. Carolina Corp., 63 Wis. 2d 342, 359, 217 N.W.2d 291 (1974), and Yourchuck challenges several of the trial court's factual determinations.
. The trial court held that the construction contract specifications dated April 18, 2000-the only documents existing at the time-constituted the contract. Yourchuck's main theory of error is that his expert stated without contradiction from Lyman's witnesses that blueprints generally are included in this type of contract. However, the trial court held the blueprints were not part of the contract, evidently rejecting Yourchuck's expert testimony. In rejecting this expert testimony, the court made a credibility determination. The trial court is the ultimate arbiter of weight and credibility. We will not overturn credibility assessments unless patently incredible. Chapman v. State, 69 Wis. 2d 581, 583, 230 N.W.2d 824 (1975). Yourchuck provides no authority for its implicit contention that the trial court is bound by expert testimony simply because it is unrefuted, and we need not consider arguments unsupported by citation to legal authority. Shaffer, 96 Wis. 2d at 545-46 n.3.
. Next, the parties disputed whether certain items charged to Yourchuck were authorized additions. Yourchuck argues that because it signed no change orders, those orders are not "valid or enforceable" and Lyman cannot recover the associated costs of the work.
. The court looked at two provisions in the contract, paragraphs 2 and 14. Paragraph 2 states in relevant part:
Any alterations or changes from the specifications on the front of this contract involving extra costs will become an extra charge .... Additional work orders will become C.O.D. .... Owner will pay for any alterations or extras ... upon substantial completion of the work.... If extra materials and/or labor are required because of ... changes requested by Owner, Owner will bear cost of same....
Paragraph 14 states in part "No change, addition, or modification of this Contract shall be valid or binding unless it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged." Yourchuck's sole argument is that it never signed any change orders.
. The court determined that the disputed changes were alterations from the original contract specifications, not changes to the contract itself. Therefore, the court determined that paragraph 2, not paragraph 14, governed treatment of the work orders. Paragraph 2 contemplates "additional work orders," but does not require they be signed. Relying on this interpretation, the court determined the additional work had been performed at Yourchuck's request, the billing was not duplicative of items already in the contract, and no signature was required.
. In any event, Yourchuck simply asserts that the additional work orders were not signed, as it believes the contract required. But Yourchuck fails to provide an analysis of or challenge to the court's interpretation of the contract. Indeed, Yourchuck merely states, without citation, "the lower court allowed these charges with the simple explanation that since the work was done ... [Yourchuck] should pay for it." The record reveals the court based its decision on other considerations, and we will not abandon our neutrality to develop Yourchuck's argument for it. See M.C.I., Inc. v. Elbin, 146 Wis. 2d 239, 244-45, 430 N.W.2d 366 (Ct. App. 1988).
. Finally, Yourchuck argues that Lyman's failure to complete the building was a breach of the contract. Therefore, at the very least, Yourchuck is entitled to a substantial offset for the cost of completing the building. Lyman argues it substantially completed the building and anything incomplete was due to Yourchuck's inter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|