{
  "id": 3046721,
  "name": "G.O.B. Construction, Inc., Claimant, v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "G.O.B. Construction, Inc. v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services",
  "decision_date": "1991-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 89-CC-1199",
  "first_page": "262",
  "last_page": "265",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 262"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "248 Ill. App. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12253457
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/248/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5537549
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/173/0179-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 307,
    "char_count": 5540,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08737285455638534
    },
    "sha256": "e15e294747fc7f090bb3523d3c64e30e035dde58531f726505a2761e06171964",
    "simhash": "1:ab71eee8181a92ed",
    "word_count": 902
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:29.978535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "G.O.B. Construction, Inc., Claimant, v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nSommer, J.\nThis cause coming to be heard upon the Claimant\u2019s motion for summary judgment on Count I of the complaint in the amount of $106,620.00, due notice having been given, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the parties had entered into a contract for the renovation of a cafeteria at Thornton Community College. The contract document was prepared on a form called the standard form of agreement between owner and contractor provided by the American Institute of Architects.\nThe contractor, G.O.B. Construction, Inc., was terminated before the work called for in the contract was completed. The parties are not contesting whether the termination was proper. Rather they are contesting the amount owed G.O.B. Construction, Inc. The contract stated that if the contractor performed certain services and provided certain materials the State would pay $178,980.00. The State had paid $72,360.00 prior to the termination. The State, after termination, hired other contractors to complete the work at a cost of $37,076.89. The Claimant contends that this amount may not be deducted from the amount owed because the Respondent does not have architect\u2019s certificates as per sections G.C. 22 and G.C. 23 of the contract.\nThe relevant language of the above sections of the contract is as follows:\nG.C. 23 OWNER\u2019S RIGHT TO TERMINATE CONTRACT:\n\u201cThe expense incurred by the Owners as herein provided and the damage incurred through the Contractor\u2019s default shall be certified by the Architect.\u201d\nG.C. 22 THE OWNER\u2019S RIGHT TO DO WORK:\n\u201cThe Owner may deduct the cost thereof from the payment then and therefore due to the Contractor, provided however, that the Architect shall approve both such action and the amount charged to the Contractor.\u201d\nSection G.C. 23 speaks to \u201cexpense\u201d and \u201cdamage\u201d in regard to finishing the work, and such must be certified by the architect. Section G.C. 22 speaks to \u201ccost\u201d and the architect must \u201capprove\u201d the amount thereof. It is apparent that the Respondent has no architect\u2019s certificate as to \u201cexpense\u201d and \u201cdamage,\u201d nor does it appear to have a written approval as to the amount of \u201ccost.\u201d The Claimant contends that under the cases cited by it, failure to have the architect\u2019s certificate or approval means that the Respondent may not deduct from the amount due the Claimant the $37,076.98 it expended to complete the work, and the Claimant is entitled to the unpaid balance of the contract without further proof.\nIn support of its contention, the Claimant cites two cases in which the holding was that if an architect\u2019s certificate in the language of the contract was \u201cconclusive\u201d as to the. cost of completion, the owner may not recover the cost of completion from a defaulting contractor without the certificate. (International Cement Co. v. Beifeld, 173 Ill. 179; Brighton Theatre Co. v. Graf, 248 Ill. App. 140.) In both cases the owner was the plaintiff seeking the cost of completion from a defaulting contractor.\nIn this claim the contractor is the Claimant seeking the balance of the contract price from the owner, and there is no language in the contract stating that the architect\u2019s certificate is \u201cconclusive\u201d as to the cost of completion. Whether the language of the present contract is effectively equivalent to the language in the contracts in the cases of International Cement Co. and Brighton Theatre Co., supra, is an issue that we do not have to decide to rule on the Claimant\u2019s motion.\nEven if we were to agree with the Claimant as to the applicability of the holdings in the foregoing cases, the Claimant still must prove its claim. The Claimant has no architect\u2019s certificates for the balance of the contract price as required by the contract, and it is not arguing that it was improperly terminated and, thus, prevented from getting the certificates. It appears that this particular situation is not covered in the contract. Therefore, this Court finds that the claim must be proved as in any other contract dispute. The Claimant must prove performance, the value of the work done, the value of the materials provided, etc. Thus, summary judgment for the unpaid balance of the contract in the amount of $106,620.00 cannot be granted. It is therefore, ordered that the Claimant\u2019s motion for summary judgment is denied.\nORDER\nSommer, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on the stipulation of the parties, due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;\nThe Court finds that on or about October 27,1989, Claimant filed the above captioned complaint for monies due under a contract for the renovation of a cafeteria at Thornton Community College. That after negotiations between the parties, Respondent concedes liability for such claim only to the extent agreed herein. That no other evidence, oral or written, will be presented to the Court, and both parties waive briefs. That both parties agree that said award will constitute full and final satisfaction of the claim herein or any other claim arising out of the same occurrence.\nIt is hereby ordered that the Claimant is awarded $69,543.02, the amount of money left in the small business enterprise line item No. 001-48830-4400-0400.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sommer, J. Sommer, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fitzpatrick & Leahy, for Claimant.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 89-CC-1199\nG.O.B. Construction, Inc., Claimant, v. Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed August 19, 1991.\nOrder filed October 15, 1991.\nFitzpatrick & Leahy, for Claimant.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Steven Schmall, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0262-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 373
}