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.

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

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

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

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