Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
L.K. Comstock & Company, Inc. v. Becon Construction Company, Inc., Cross-Appellee
Citations: 73 F.3d 362; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 40727Docket: 94-6202
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; December 3, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
Defendant Becon Construction Company, Inc. appeals the final judgment of the district court concerning a subcontract dispute with plaintiff L.K. Comstock Company, Inc. related to construction work at the Toyota Automotive Assembly Plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. Becon raises three primary issues on appeal: 1. Whether the district court and special master erred in determining that Becon could not utilize the "fair value" payment option specified in Article 4.C of the subcontract for compensating Comstock for pipe support installation. 2. Whether they incorrectly concluded that page 17-2 of the MCAA Manual outlines "installation unit rates" as defined in Article 5.3 of the subcontract. 3. Whether they mistakenly classified pipe supports as "light iron" under the definitions provided on page 17-2 of the MCAA Manual. In its cross-appeal, Comstock argues that the district court wrongly struck its jury trial demand regarding count 17 of its complaint. After reviewing the case, the court affirms the district court's judgment concerning Becon's appeal, agreeing with the special master's findings and the district court's subsequent opinion. Consequently, Comstock's cross-appeal is dismissed.