Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J&R Slaw, Inc. v. ALl Systems Precast

July 11, 2008

J&R SLAW, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
ALL SYSTEMS PRECAST, INC. DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Spatt, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract arising from an alleged sub-contract between the plaintiff, J&R Slaw, Inc., and the defendant, All Systems Precast, Inc., for the defendant to perform "precast" concrete work as part of the construction of a nursing facility. The plaintiff, by its complaint, alleges that the parties entered into an agreement whereby the defendant would erect the precast concrete as set forth in project specifications for the agreed upon price of $1,818,340., and that the defendant breached the agreement by failing to complete performance.

The plaintiff's succinct complaint alleges two causes of action. Count I, states in pertinent part that:

. . . Slaw entered into a subcontract with defendant All Systems whereby All Systems was to perform the erection of the precast concrete for the agreed-reasonable price and reasonable value of $1,818,340 ("Agreement").

Defendant All Systems entered into performance of said contract agreement, attended project meetings, participated in the review of development of precast piecing and sizing, participated in the determination of equipment utilization, submitted drawing for the location of proposed equipment and presented requests for change orders.

In or about May, 2007, defendant All Systems breached and defaulted upon said Agreement by advising plaintiff that it was "withdrawing" from the Agreement and by refusing to perform anything further in connection with the Agreement or the Project.

By reason of defendant's breach and default upon its contract obligations, plaintiff has been forced to engage others to complete defendant's contract obligations.

Complaint, November 14, 2007, at ¶¶ 6--9.

Count II, apparently grounded on a theory of promissory estoppel states:

Defendant submitted a quote and proposal to plaintiff for the performance of the work on the Project.

Upon submitting this quote and proposal to plaintiff, defendant knew that plaintiff would rely on the quote and proposal in furtherance of its work on the Project.

Plaintiff advised defendant that it was accepting the quote and proposal and was proceeding with a subcontract agreement.

Defendant acknowledged the parties' agreement with respect to the Project by entering into performance by, inter alia, attending project meetings, participating in the review and development of precast piecing and sizing, participating in the review and development of equipment utilization, submitting ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.