{
  "id": 5316422,
  "name": "R. H. Bishop & Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "R. H. Bishop & Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 80-CC-1266",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 296"
    }
  ],
  "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": 241,
    "char_count": 3144,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.881,
    "sha256": "44cac826b5ec1cdcae829c00693859e1daa6b7a8ea3fc68ab9ba32d64ea601ce",
    "simhash": "1:2570e813f1e6872f",
    "word_count": 499
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:43.791876+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. H. Bishop & Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Roe, C. J.\nThis, claim arises from certain work performed by the Claimant, R. H. Bishop and Company, in the building of the centralized computer facility being a State project through the Capital Development Board.\nThe Claimant submitted a bid on the heating portion of the premises, and also on the ventilation and air conditioning portion of the contract. The Claimant was awarded the ventilation and air conditioning contract, but was not a successful bidder on the heating contract.\nDuring the course of construction, a dispute arose over installation of certain exhaust stacks from the emergency generators located in the building. It is the Claimant\u2019s contention that the insulation of these stacks was the responsibility of the heating contractor rather than under his specifications on the ventilation and air conditioning contract.\nIt is the State\u2019s position, and that of the Capital Development Board, that Claimant was to furnish this insulation which was done, and for which Claimant claims an additional $14,026.00. Mr. Charles L. Amancher testified that he was a mechanical engineer and prepared Claimant\u2019s bids, and had been active in doing that type of work for over 20 years.\nIt is our opinion, after lengthy testimony, that the issue centers on an interpretation of the specifications contained in those furnished to Claimant under section 1.2 and subsections B and C. It may be seen under subsections B and C that the contractor has an option, which was acknowledged in the testimony. The contractor may either have these stacks made by an independent factory or may fabricate them itself under par. C. The only specific reference to insulation is in par. C-l, which gives the specifications as to how they are to be constructed \u201cbefore application of insulation.\u201d We note, however, in section B, subsection 3 that \u201cOverall heat transfer coefficient shall be not greater than 0.35 BTU per hour/sq.ft./degree F. at 1000 degrees F. gas temperature.\u201d\nIt is our opinion that the reasonable interpretation of these two sections is that the person responsible for the ventilation and air conditioning installation is to provide these stacks with insulation. The plain meaning of section B-3 to an engineer would be that insulation is required to conform to that specification of heat transfer coefficient.\nIt is further shown that the Claimant did have an item for insulation contained in his bid for approximately $2,000.00, and Claimant submitted no evidence to show whether this item was included in the heating contractor\u2019s bid. Moreover, because this Court does not have equitable jurisdiction, an action for quantum meruit cannot succeed.\nIt is our opinion, therefore, that the specifications were sufficiently clear and that the contractor should be bound by his original bid. Accordingly, the claim is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Roe, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Busch, Harrington & Porter (Kip R. Pope, of counsel), for Claimant.",
      "Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Sue M. Mueller and William E. Webber, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 80-CC-1266\nR. H. Bishop & Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 1, 1982.\nBusch, Harrington & Porter (Kip R. Pope, of counsel), for Claimant.\nTyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (Sue M. Mueller and William E. Webber, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 454,
  "last_page_order": 456
}