25 A.D.2d 329 (N.Y. App. Div. 1966)
r
r
When a construction contract clearly specifies unit prices for excavation work exceeding estimated quantities, the contractor is bound by those prices even if the actual quantities significantly exceed the estimates, absent misrepresentation by the State.
r
r
Summary
r
Tufano Contracting Corp. contracted with the State of New York for the construction of a building, including rock excavation, at Manhattan State Hospital. The contract stipulated unit prices for rock excavation exceeding specified quantities. The actual rock excavation far surpassed these quantities, and Tufano sought additional compensation beyond the unit prices, arguing the excess was beyond contractual contemplation and that the State misrepresented the amount of work. The Court of Claims agreed, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding Tufano to the contract’s unit price provisions. The court reasoned that the contract explicitly accounted for quantity variations and that the State made no misrepresentations regarding the expected amount of rock excavation. Tufano assumed the risk of quantity variation.
r
r
Facts
r
r
In March 1958, Tufano Contracting Corp. entered into a contract with the State of New York for the construction of a building at Manhattan State Hospital. The contract included rock excavation.r
The contract specified a lump sum for the entire project, but with unit prices for excavation exceeding or falling short of assumed quantities.r
The specifications stated that the contract sum would be adjusted at $10 per cubic yard for general rock excavation exceeding 500 cubic yards, and at $22 per cubic yard for rock excavation in piers and trenches exceeding 600 cubic yards.r
The actual rock excavation totaled 2,982 cubic yards, significantly exceeding the specified thresholds.r
Tufano was paid for the additional quantities at the contractually agreed unit prices.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Tufano sued the State in the New York Court of Claims, seeking additional compensation for the excess rock excavation beyond the unit prices stipulated in the contract.r
The Court of Claims ruled in favor of Tufano, finding the excess excavation outside reasonable contractual contemplation and allowing recovery on a quantum meruit basis.r
The Appellate Division reversed the Court of Claims’ decision, enforcing the contract’s unit price provisions for the additional work.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether Tufano was entitled to additional compensation beyond the contractually agreed unit prices for rock excavation that significantly exceeded the estimated quantities in the construction contract.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
No, because the contract explicitly provided for unit prices for excavation exceeding specified quantities, and Tufano assumed the risk of quantity variation. Furthermore, there was no misrepresentation by the State regarding the amount of rock excavation.r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The court reasoned that the written agreement clearly anticipated rock excavation above or below the specified quantities, as evidenced by the unit price provisions.r
The contract lacked any provision limiting the total rock excavation required at the stated prices, indicating Tufano assumed the risk of quantity variation.r
The court emphasized that