https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296446 A lump sum contract does not become a rate contract merely because curtailed work is valued at scheduled rates for additions or omissions. The court also held that the plaintiff's case was one of positive fraudulent misrepresentation, not mere non-disclosure: the cost estimates were represented as correct, relied on in negotiations, and induced the bargain. On that basis, damages were recoverable for fraud and the plaintiff was entitled to the additional amount that would have been payable had the estimates included the omitted items. The alternative contractual claim failed, and no further amount was payable for the office buildings. en-us Fri, 05 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jul 2021 15:31:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296446 A lump sum contract does not become a rate contract merely because curtailed work is valued at scheduled rates for additions or omissions. The court also held that the plaintiff's case was one of positive fraudulent misrepresentation, not mere non-disclosure: the cost estimates were represented as correct, relied on in negotiations, and induced the bargain. On that basis, damages were recoverable for fraud and the plaintiff was entitled to the additional amount that would have been payable had the estimates included the omitted items. The alternative contractual claim failed, and no further amount was payable for the office buildings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296446