{
  "id": 5317605,
  "name": "Evans Associates, a partnership, Claimant, v. Illinois Building Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Illinois, and Capital Development Board, an agency of the State of Illinois, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans Associates v. Illinois Building Authority",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 78-CC-0267",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 140"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 4565,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.907,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3928846816937976
    },
    "sha256": "f9d00bde1b2352a4ab5475e0062553dee71a428a97f43f464edf03a8d6ab8849",
    "simhash": "1:0f382482e586c058",
    "word_count": 730
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:43.791876+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Evans Associates, a partnership, Claimant, v. Illinois Building Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Illinois, and Capital Development Board, an agency of the State of Illinois, Respondents."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Roe, C.J.\nThe facts in this case are largely undisputed. The Board of Governors entered into two architectural service contracts with Claimants to provide services in connection with construction of the Governors State University.\nThe two contracts were identical when assigned to the Respondents. The Illinois Building Authority was responsible for building construction \u00e1nd their contract was changed at the time of the assignment by mutual agreement wherein subparagraph 1.3.11 was deleted.\nThe Board of Governors assigned the oldest contract to the Capital Development Board, which was responsible for the fixtures in the building.\nThe three ag\u00e9ncies shared in the payment of the architectural fees on a pro rata basis based upon what their share of the contract was with respect to the cost of the project. The Illinois Building Authority\u2019s share was 83% and the Capital Development Board was responsible for 9%.\nThe decision of the Court with respect to the Illinois Building Authority and the Claimant will be binding on the Capital Development Board and the Claimant.\nThe Claimant contends it was to provide basic architectural services through July 11, 1973, and that when the contract extended beyond that point the \u201cbasic\u201d services became \u201cadditional\u201d services for which they were entitled to additional payment expressly under the contract. Due to the fault of the contractor the project did not move according to schedule. A meeting was held in August 1973 with representatives of all the parties present. New schedules and procedures for completion were discussed but the Respondent did not specifically promise or agree to the payment of additional fees to the Claimant because of the extension of time beyond the completion date. It is the contention that the building was only 70% completed on July 11, 1973, and it can only be assumed that Claimants and suppliers had only received 79% of their fees at that time. It was to the best interest of all of the suppliers of goods and services to proceed with the project.\nThe contract responsibilities of the Claimant did hot change after the meeting of the parties. (Record 58.) The Claimant continued to service the contract.\nThe Claimant contends that \u201ctime\u201d determines what is a \u201cbasic\u201d or \u201cadditional\u201d service rather than the \u201cnature\u201d of the service. The Court does not agree with this contention. An examination of the contract specifically says the \u201ctime set forth as guidelines and not essential conditions of the contract.\u201d\nBased upon this provision there is no specific completion date. If the July 11, 1973, date was arrived by adding the total number of months in the completion schedule, which is 43, to the contract date to arrive at July 11, 1973, as a completion date, it is not a valid method.\nThe schedule determines what are basic services and they start with design and proceed through administration of the construction contract.\nThe subparagraph with respect to \u201cadditional services\u201d provides for additional fees made necessary by the default of the contractor or performance of the construction contract and for providing contract administration if construction time exceeds contract time by 20% through no fault of architecture. The provision as to construction time exceeding contract time was deleted in the Illinois Board Authority contract. The deletion was agreed to by the Claimant. The situation could have been specifically covered by a provision in the contract. However, a Claimant witness testified that it was unheard of for construction to exceed the contract by 20%, so apparently the Claimant was willing to assume this risk to secure the contract.\nThe Court is of the opinion that the contractor in fact defaulted in the performance of the contract, but there is no breakdown or proof as to how this delay added to the cost of providing basic services by the Claimant or that the default added to the architectural costs.\nThe contractural relationship of the parties can be determined by the written contract so there is no necessity to imply a contract. The Claimant\u2019s claim is therefore denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Roe, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Livingston, Barger, Brandt, Slater & Schroeder (William R. Brandt, of counsel), for Claimant.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 78-CC-0267\nEvans Associates, a partnership, Claimant, v. Illinois Building Authority, a body corporate and politic of the State of Illinois, and Capital Development Board, an agency of the State of Illinois, Respondents.\nOpinion filed October 23, 1981.\nLivingston, Barger, Brandt, Slater & Schroeder (William R. Brandt, of counsel), for Claimant.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 298,
  "last_page_order": 300
}