BUSINESS LAW -On January 2, Wabash Construction Company, a general contractor

QUESTION

2. On January 2, Wabash Construction Company, a general contractor, executed a written contract with Anderson Brick, Inc., a subcontractor. The contract relates to a major “strip mall” building project in Morgantown, and Wabash faces a deadline of October 31 in its contract with The Mackie Consortium, L.L.C., the owners of the new mall. In the agreement between Wabash and Anderson, the parties stipulate that “time is of the essence” in terms of performance of the bricklaying work, and that the deadline for Anderson’s completion of the bricklaying work is July 15. There is also a “liquidated damages” clause in the contract between Wabash and Anderson, indicating that if the work is not completed by July 15, Anderson will pay $2,000 in damages for every day the bricklaying is not completed beyond July 15.Anderson does not complete the bricklaying work by July 15. In fact, the project is not finished until August 30, and Wabash now claims liquidated damages from Anderson in the amount of $92,000 (representing 46 days beyond the July 15 deadline, multiplied by $2,000 per day.) Anderson refuses to pay the $92,000, and Wabash sues.At trial, Anderson’s attorney seeks to introduce the following evidence: 1) the testimony of Henry Anderson, Anderson’s owner, who is willing to testify under oath that at the time of the signing of the contract, Wabash’s general manager, Fred Stein, said “Pay no attention to the July 15 deadline in the contract; if you need more time, all you have to do is ask;” and 2) a crumpled index card, purportedly in Fred Stein’s handwriting, indicating “no ‘hard and fast’ deadline on Anderson brick work.”Should the trial court judge admit this evidence?

ANSWER:

REQUEST HELP FROM A TUTOR