Background:
VJR contracted with JRS to supply and place roller-compacted concrete (RCC) under a unit price contract ($89/tonne), estimating 15,840 tonnes (8 acres). Due to subgrade deficiencies and an increased project area, actual RCC requirements exceeded 18,000 tonnes. JRS withheld $161,078.43 from VJR's final invoice, claiming overbilling and alleging failure to meet the agreed RCC thickness.

Key Findings:

1. Contract Nature: The agreement was a unit price contract, not a lump sum. Payment depended on the RCC supplied, with adjustments for changes in scope (e.g., subgrade issues and increased area).
2. VJR’s Performance: VJR fulfilled its obligations, providing accurate records of RCC usage. Variations were necessary due to JRS’s deficient subgrade and project changes.
3. JRS Counterclaim: The court rejected JRS’s claim of overbilling and inadequate RCC thickness, citing unreliable core sampling methods and lack of evidence.
4. Credibility: VJR’s witnesses were deemed credible; JRS’s owner was found unreliable due to poor memory and contradictory statements.

Outcome:

• JRS must pay $161,078.43, with 5% interest from September 16, 2020.
• VJR is entitled to costs.