Legal Opinion
Maskel Construction Co. v. Town of Glastonbury
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided December 22, 1969PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHouse, J.
This action was brought by the plaintiff against the town of Glastonbury for compensation for services and materials claimed to be due under the provisions of a sewer construction contract. The contract, known as a unit price contract, was one in which a bidder did not submit a bid on the project at a total price but rather submitted a bid for each unit item to be installed, the total cost being subsequently determined by the number of such units ordered by the defendant’s sewer authority and installed by the contractor. The defendant supplied the bidders with maps or plans and specifications…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Glendale Woolen Co. v. Protection Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1851
- Dahl v. Edwin Moss & Son, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- George S. Chatfield Co. v. O'NeillSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Beattie v. McMullenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Construction Aggregates Corp. v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- John T. Brady & Co. v. City of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- Foundation International, Inc. v. E.T. Ige Construction, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2003
- Grenier v. Compratt Construction Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Empire Paving, Inc. v. City of MilfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2000
- CAS Construction Co. v. Town of East HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.