Last weekend we played Speak-Out: Kids versus Parents, a game where you use a plastic thingy to obstruct your speech capabilities. The winning team is the one that guesses the most phrases. Reading and understanding an insurance policy on a construction project can be a lot like understanding my kids playing Speak Out.
[video
Our middle child of seven kids suffers from classic Middle Child Syndrome. She has the largest heart in the family, and yet every other minute is a moment of devastation, wrought with feelings of neglect, resentfulness and sadness. We love her and we have empathy, but—like government contractors who sometimes feel burned—there are no devastation
As a father of seven children, my wife has often accused me of being Disney Dad−something to do with the allegation that I am the “fun” parent who takes the children to movies all the time, serves ice cream for breakfast, and lets them sleep in their clothes at bedtime. Never have…never did.
While
Long before I was an attorney, I heard this tale that if you endorsed a check that had the words “PAID IN FULL” written on the check, then you were accepting the check as full payment of what was owed. But I had never really thought about that legal principle because, “People don’t really do
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