Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Bruno (D) had a contract with New York to build a bridge. Schenectady (P) contracted with D to furnish and erect the steel necessary for that bridge. The contract stated that time was of the essence and the work had to be completed in 1968. P had problems getting the proper steel and did not complete performance in 1968. In January and February of 1969, D demanded that P provide a schedule for completion of work. P stated that it would proceed 'with all possible speed,' but gave no completion date. D made an inspection and canceled the contract. P sued for the reasonable value of the services rendered, and D counterclaimed for damages. The trial court dismissed P's complaint and gave the judgment to D on his counterclaim for damages. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.