Spang v. Aetna

• Concrete pouring works best at higher temperatures.
• Torrington Construction Co., Inc. = defendant = plaintiff = a construction contractor
• In 1969, Torrington won a construction bid to pour concrete in a section of the highway in upstate New York near the border with Vermont
• Spang Industries, Inc., Fort Pitt Bridge Division = "Spang" = "Fort Pitt" = plaintiff = a sub-contractor which would supply steel to construct a bridge = steel supplier
• Torrington gave a quote from Spang Industries
• Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. = defendant (also) = Torrington's insurance company = "Aetna"
• Torrington's contract stipulated that the construction project would need to be completed by the end of 1971
• Torrington, nonetheless, wanted Span to finish by the end of 1970 (early)
• Torrington told Spang that the steel would be need by June 1970
• In January 1970, Spang told Torrington that the steel couldn't be delivered by June 1970--so it would be late
• After some arguing, Spang promised to deliver the steel to Torrington by August 1970
• In fact, Spang delivered steel in mid-September which make pouring concrete challenging as the cold season was starting in upstate New York
• As Torrington scrambled to quickly finish the job as the weather was dropping precipitously in October 1970, Torrington incurred extra costs related to overtime, extra equipment, and protective coverings needed because of the cold weather.

• Torrington (the concrete company) sued Spang (the steel supplier) due to Spang's delay
• Spang also sued Aetna, Torrington's insurance company, to recover the balance due on the sub-contract
• The district court in New York ruled that Torrington owed the amount due to Spang under the sub-contract while deducting $7,600 in damages from Spang's payment for the late delivery of steel
• In other words, Spang lost

Is recovery for breach of contract limited to injuries that could be anticipated at the time a contract was formed?

Spang argued that Torrington's original contract needed the work to be completed by December 1971. Thus, there was no need for Torrington to rush to complete the job in advance.

Yes. However, if a contract provides that the time of performance will be fixed later, the parties can reasonably anticipate potential injuries as of the date the time of performance was fixed.

Affirmed

Torrington (concrete contractor) & Spang (sub-contractor providing steel) had mutually agreed in their sub-contract that the steel would be need by June 1970.