You don’t always say what you mean. And you don’t always mean what you say. In construction contracts, parties attempt to use plain and ordinary words to describe their respective obligations.
As an example, when the parties use the word “shall” in their agreement, they generally understand that the obligation specified is mandatory. Or
I read in my Twitter feed this morning about a recent case where the Missouri Court of Appeals formally adopted the Spearin Doctrine.
I immediately wondered if I could explain the Spearin Doctrine in less than 140 characters. Here you go:
US v. Spearin: Owner designs. Contractor builds. Owner accepts. Work sucks. Owner sues. Contractor
It’s not everyday that you read about one of your longtime heroes, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”), losing some of its mojo. The Nash & Cibinic Report read as follows: “The FAR: Does It Have Contractual Force and Effect?”
According to the article, there remains some confusion about the application of the FAR based upon
In the world of Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, it is no secret that individuals are communicating regularly on their smartphones about their business affairs. Recently, a court addressed the question about whether a text message can constitute a writing sufficient under the Statute of Frauds to create an enforceable contract.
Whether you are an owner, contractor, subcontractor or supplier, you will want to read the rest of this post since it illustrates precisely what all those attorneys have been telling you for years: “Please, please, please read your contract.” In this instance, one party’s failure to strictly follow the contractual notice provision was a $209,235.36
Rarely do you find a case that succinctly addresses a construction law issue. Today, one of my legal alerts pointed me to one such case dealing with delay damages and disruption damages. This is a must read!
In County of Galveston v. Triple B Services, LLP, decided on May 26, 2016, the Court of
I previously blogged about the rules relating to pass-through claims, where a prime contractor’s recovery from an owner for damages suffered by its subcontractor is limited in certain circumstances. In the post, I talked about a “past-through-plus” claim based upon the Severin doctrine, which provides a prime contractor cannot sue an owner on behalf
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. That’s no fun! Why even get the cake if you are not allowed to eat it? Recently, a court held that a public owner could have both a termination for convenience, as well as liquidated damages.
In Old Colony Construction, LLC v. Southington, 316 Conn.
No self-respecting Ninja goes into battle without a plan, right? You need to know your environment, your opponent and the rules of the battle. For you Ninja contractors, it’s a good thing to fully understand your potential recovery before you spend countless months and thousands of dollars pursuing a claim against your state DOT for
Some will say that a “no damages for delay” clause is harsh. Well, it depends on which hat you wear. If you are a contractor, you have a reasonable expectation that you will be paid for the extra work to overcome a delay beyond your control, especially if the owner causes or contributes to the