 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
I am especially interested in historical iconic mistakes. What comes to my mind quickly is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Surely it would not take legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright to notice that it was not rising according to plan. None of us would allow our houses to be built off perpendicular like that without at least emailing the builder at one point and saying, “I don’t know. When you get a chance, please drop by, and have a look.”
I Googled to see if anybody ever sued but saw nothing even remotely resembling, The Municipality of Pisa v. The Tower Pros. If anybody did, I imagine the reported decision might look as follows.
Justice Obliquo:
This is an action for breach of contract by the City State of Pisa against The Tower Experts Inc. (“the contractor”).
FACTS
In or about the year 1173, the plaintiff Pisa hired the contractor to construct a large tower about eight stories in height, in Pisa’s main square. It was a term of the contract that the tower be of good workmanship and be fully functional as a bell tower. The contractor’s principal, Mario di Genoa, assured the plaintiff that the job would be completed by one year “as sure as the world was flat.” The city’s eager mayor, Paolo Pisano, at the groundbreaking ceremony proudly announced, “This tower will be great for our economy, attracting thousands of visitors annually.” This comment turned out to be accurate but ominous.
Unfortunately the tower was not completed until 1372. Even worse: rather than being straight, it ended up leaning about five degrees off perpendicular, or about 4.5 meters.
The court heard from a number of witnesses, and also considered evidence from discovery examinations and other writings from people no longer in existence.
I note that His Worship Paolo Pisano noticed that construction after about year one consisted of only the digging of a few spades of earth. He sent a messenger to di Genoa querying about the apparent slow progress. Di Genoa’s response was that he was busy doing some minor renovations at the Coliseum in Rome and that he would resume working on the tower on Tuesday.
The two main issues in this case are delay in completion of the work and quality of workmanship.
Delay
The contractor argues that any delays were not the company’s fault.
It claims that firstly its chief architect, one Antonio Grande, suffered a nasty accident as he fell off the scaffolding, resulting in major delays. It was not an uncommon occurrence for architects to fall off scaffolding. However, the court notes from the archival records that at that time the scaffolding was only about one meter high. I reject the argument that for years the architect was unable to resume his duties due to an alleged disability of post-traumatic stress disorder, brought on by a fear of heights. I find this argument to be a crock of bologna.
The defendant further pleads that the construction project was hampered by frequent wars between the city states, including Siena, Lucca and Firenze. It alleges that there was no sense trying to build a tower only to have some hordes come by and knock it over. It even quoted General Respighio of Livorno who said, “unpowder … hmm ... Maybe I should pay a visit to Pisa.”
In my view the war excuse is mere speculation. True, many workers were in short supply due to getting conscripted. But I find the contractor did not do enough to address the problems. In fact, about 70 years before completing construction it placed a sign at the tower’s entrance reading, “Not hiring now.”
The contractor further blames delays on the great plague. Its current principal claims that many of its workers refused to show up for work. He argues that the head of the mason’s guild, Mauricio di Milano, said, “No way my men are going near that tower. Did you see those black blotches on the foreman’s face?”
I take judicial notice that hardly a century goes by in Europe without being visited by a plague. In one century alone we all got hit with many strains of bubonic plague, including alpha, beta and the most severe, Parmigiana.
The court accepts the plague as a reason to cut some slack for the defendant taking a bit more time than one year to complete the project.
Which gets us to the problem of the leaning tower.
Workmanship
The plaintiff alleges that the tower is freakish. It says thousands of tourists have been flocking to Pisa in the past few years, and they all laugh at and ridicule the tower, calling Pisa’s inhabitants gullible. The mayor says he has received dozens of letters from people offering to sell his city the Venetian Rialto Bridge.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff condoned the tower’s looks, taking about 200 years to start this court action. It testified that after the tower was about two stories high, it leaned a bit, resulting in the designated bell ringer, one Marco de Medici, to say, “Hey, I’m not climbing up this thing until you straighten it out.”
The mayor and his councilmen claimed they would look at the tower under construction, occasionally whenever they would exit the neighbouring tavern, and it looked straight to them.
Whether or not there was some condonation, the defendant argues that any claims are barred given the expiry of limitation periods. Section 3 of the Limitations Act notes:
In or about the year 1173, the plaintiff Pisa hired the contractor to construct a large tower about eight stories in height, in Pisa’s main square. It was a term of the contract that the tower be of good workmanship and be fully functional as a bell tower. The contractor’s principal, Mario di Genoa, assured the plaintiff that the job would be completed by one year “as sure as the world was flat.” The city’s eager mayor, Paolo Pisano, at the groundbreaking ceremony proudly announced, “This tower will be great for our economy, attracting thousands of visitors annually.” This comment turned out to be accurate but ominous.
Unfortunately the tower was not completed until 1372. Even worse: rather than being straight, it ended up leaning about five degrees off perpendicular, or about 4.5 meters.
The court heard from a number of witnesses, and also considered evidence from discovery examinations and other writings from people no longer in existence.
I note that His Worship Paolo Pisano noticed that construction after about year one consisted of only the digging of a few spades of earth. He sent a messenger to di Genoa querying about the apparent slow progress. Di Genoa’s response was that he was busy doing some minor renovations at the Coliseum in Rome and that he would resume working on the tower on Tuesday.
The two main issues in this case are delay in completion of the work and quality of workmanship.
Delay
The contractor argues that any delays were not the company’s fault.
It claims that firstly its chief architect, one Antonio Grande, suffered a nasty accident as he fell off the scaffolding, resulting in major delays. It was not an uncommon occurrence for architects to fall off scaffolding. However, the court notes from the archival records that at that time the scaffolding was only about one meter high. I reject the argument that for years the architect was unable to resume his duties due to an alleged disability of post-traumatic stress disorder, brought on by a fear of heights. I find this argument to be a crock of bologna.
The defendant further pleads that the construction project was hampered by frequent wars between the city states, including Siena, Lucca and Firenze. It alleges that there was no sense trying to build a tower only to have some hordes come by and knock it over. It even quoted General Respighio of Livorno who said, “unpowder … hmm ... Maybe I should pay a visit to Pisa.”
In my view the war excuse is mere speculation. True, many workers were in short supply due to getting conscripted. But I find the contractor did not do enough to address the problems. In fact, about 70 years before completing construction it placed a sign at the tower’s entrance reading, “Not hiring now.”
The contractor further blames delays on the great plague. Its current principal claims that many of its workers refused to show up for work. He argues that the head of the mason’s guild, Mauricio di Milano, said, “No way my men are going near that tower. Did you see those black blotches on the foreman’s face?”
I take judicial notice that hardly a century goes by in Europe without being visited by a plague. In one century alone we all got hit with many strains of bubonic plague, including alpha, beta and the most severe, Parmigiana.
The court accepts the plague as a reason to cut some slack for the defendant taking a bit more time than one year to complete the project.
Which gets us to the problem of the leaning tower.
Workmanship
The plaintiff alleges that the tower is freakish. It says thousands of tourists have been flocking to Pisa in the past few years, and they all laugh at and ridicule the tower, calling Pisa’s inhabitants gullible. The mayor says he has received dozens of letters from people offering to sell his city the Venetian Rialto Bridge.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff condoned the tower’s looks, taking about 200 years to start this court action. It testified that after the tower was about two stories high, it leaned a bit, resulting in the designated bell ringer, one Marco de Medici, to say, “Hey, I’m not climbing up this thing until you straighten it out.”
The mayor and his councilmen claimed they would look at the tower under construction, occasionally whenever they would exit the neighbouring tavern, and it looked straight to them.
Whether or not there was some condonation, the defendant argues that any claims are barred given the expiry of limitation periods. Section 3 of the Limitations Act notes:
Parties have two years to initiate any claims for road accidents, medical malpractice and construction of faulty towers.
Section 3 doesn’t read “two years more or less.” I find that the plaintiff is caught by this statute, as it was dilatory in commencing this action.
The case is dismissed. Counsel have 14 days to provide written argument for legal costs. Please do hurry as the courts may close down as there is a rumour that we are about to be attacked by the Duke of Verona. A plague on him.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. His new(!) book First, Let’s Kill the Lawyer Jokes: An Attorney’s Irreverent Serious Look at the Legal Universe, is available on Amazon, Apple and other book places. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him on X: @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.