Brinderson -Newberg Joint Venture v. Pacific Erectors, Inc.

971 F.2d 272, cert. denied 507 U.S. 914 (1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Brinderson (P) was awarded a contract by the Navy to build a power plant at Puget Sound. P then negotiated with Pacific (D) to erect a large steel Flue Gas System. A final contract was drafted and reviewed line by line. A dispute arose over pick and set requirements, but P assured D that the language only required picks and sets for the Flue Gas System. The parties performed under the contract and a dispute arose. P claimed that D was required to erect the components under the contract. D claimed that it was only required to pick and set the components while P erected them. Under D's understanding, D only had to complete the work to the extent that it had customarily completed similar work as a subcontractor. D was required to 'erect complete' only a portion of the FGS, not the entire system. D introduced parol evidence at trial alleging that, before the contract was signed, P orally assured D that the phrases 'erect complete' and 'make a complete installation' only meant that D had to complete the structural and miscellaneous steel work for the FGS. P denies making such representations and contends it was clear that D was required to erect and install the entire FGS. P argues that the district court erred by allowing the jury to hear and consider this parol evidence. The trial court denied P's motion for a directed verdict based on parol evidence. P appealed.