CROOKHAM & VESSELS, INC. v. LARRY MOYER TRUCKING, INC., Division I of Court of Appeals of Arkansas (1985)

FACTS: In January 1982, Larry Moyer Trucking Inc. entered a subcontract agreement with Crookham & Vessels Inc. to do excavation and dirt work on a project, provided they followed Garver & Garver, Inc's plans and specifications. Bidders, under the Port Authority’s Invitation to Bid, were required to visit the jobsite to fully acquaint themselves with the existing conditions and inspect for any difficulties or restrictions present which Larry Moyer did. Shortly after Moyer Trucking Inc. began their excavation and dirt work, a problem arose when the water did not drain out of the ditches they excavated due to a clogging offsite. Because the clogging occurred, the ditches collapsed requiring Moyer Trucking Inc. to repeatedly re-dig the ditches. Mr. Moyer informed Crookham & Vessel’s representative, Alan McElhaney, Moyer Trucking Inc. could not continue digging the ditches without extra pay which Mr. McElhaney had agreed. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Larry Moyer Trucking Inc., in Pulaski County Circuit Court, was awarded $16,093.39 in damages ($12,095.00 for “extra ditching,” $3,998.39 for contract costs, and prejudgment interest on the portion of the judgment representing contract costs). Crookham & Vessels Inc., appealed, contending the court erred in failing to direct a verdict in their favor for lack of consideration in Larry Moyer Trucking Inc.’s case. Larry Moyer Trucking Inc. cross-appealed contending the court erred in failing to award them prejudgment interest on the portion of damages relating to the costs of the “extra ditching.” 

ISSUE(S): Whether the appellee, Larry Moyer Trucking Inc., failed to show any consideration for the alleged promise to pay extra for the ditching. 

HOLDING: The appellee, Larry Moyer Trucking Inc., failed to show any consideration for the alleged agreement to pay him extra for the ditching. 

REASONING: Under Arkansas law, the “inconvenience or the cost of compliance with the contract or other like thing cannot excuse a party from the performance of an absolute and unqualified undertaking to do that which is possible and lawful.” In addition, Arkansas law also states “if no benefit is received by the obligee except what he or she was entitled to under the original contract, and the other party to the contract parts with nothing except what he or she was already bound for, there is no consideration for the additional contract concerning the subject matter of the original one.” Given the appelle, Larry Moyer Trucking Inc., was delayed in completing only the work stated in the contract due to unforeseen circumstances - clogged culverts - they do not have additional consideration nor are entitled to additional compensation. The jury verdict in the amount of $12,095.00 for the “extra ditching” was overturned. 

JUDGMENT: The court struck the jury’s entire verdict in this case, dealing with the appellee’s claim for “extra work” charges, and confirmed the directed decision entered for contract costs. The court “Affirmed as modified” the circuit court’s judgment.