Mallory & Evans Contractors and Engineers, LLC v. Tuskegee University
3:10-cv-00026
M.D. Ala.Feb 14, 2011Background
- M&E moved for Rule 59(e) relief after summary judgment favored Tuskegee; court denied motion.
- Purchase Order Six required prior Purchasing Department approval for cost increases; changes in scope occurred.
- Contract total was $3,850,535 (inclusive of tax credits on equipment); total project cost to Tuskegee was $4,570,000.
- M&E alleged breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, and argued express contract issues including waiver, ratification, and item-six triggering.
- Court held no manifest error in excluding implied contract/quantum meruit; ratification arguments untimely; evidence insufficient to show Tuskegee ratified price modifications; corrected a footnote on contract totals; denial of Rule 59(e) affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied contract/quantum meruit viability | M&E contends implied contract/quantum meruit rose from work | Tuskegee maintains express contract governs; no basis for implied terms | Denied; court found no manifest error on implied contract/quantum meruit grounds |
| Waiver of condition precedent | M&E argues Tuskegee waived Item Six | Waiver insufficient; argument relitigates prior matters | Denied; waived not shown |
| Ratification of price modification | Wesson’s actions allegedly ratified by Tuskegee | No evidence of authority/knowledge to ratify; issues untimely | Denied; ratification argument rejected on merits and timeliness |
| Triggering of Item Six regarding pricing changes | Item Six should govern changes; modification possible | Item Six not triggered; changes exceeding contract amount disallowed | Denied; evidence shows no trigger that would alter contract payment obligations |
Key Cases Cited
- Rush v. Atomic Electric Co., 384 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 1980) (ratification requires knowledge and authority; distinct from mere contract terms)
- Tuskegee Institute v. May Refrigeration Co., 344 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1977) (agency and ratification interplay in Tuskegee contracts)
- Tuskegee Inst., 344 So. 2d 157 (Ala. 1977) (agency/ratification discussion in contract context)
- Dusenberry v. First Nat’l Bank of Birmingham, 122 So. 2d 716 (Ala. 1959) (evidence of knowledge sufficient for ratification standards)
- Bence v. Ala. Coal Coop., 681 So. 2d 130 (Ala. 1996) (knowledge of acts performed on behalf of principal; ratification standards)