Constructlaw

Subscribe to Constructlaw's Posts

McNally Wellman Company v. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation,
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23312 (2d Cir. August 18, 1995)
Exclusion of Consequential Damages – A no-damage-for-delay clause insulated a construction supplier from liability for delays in delivery of six spillway gates on a dam project. The application of the UCC prevented the project owner from invoking the common law exceptions to enforcement of a no-damage-for-delay clause.

Fru-Con Constr. Co. v. Southwestern Redevelopment Corp. II,
1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1443 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 1995)
Arbitration Claims Limit – The Contractor submitted a $20 million claim and then commenced lawsuit against the Owner. After nearly two years of litigation, the Owner requested the architect to evaluate claim and the architect determined that the claim was actually a group of small claims, all of which (except one) were less that $200,000 and, therefore, subject to arbitration provision in contract.

Architectural Metal Systems, Inc. v. Consolidated Systems, Inc.,
58 F.3d 1227 No 94-3898 (7th Cir. July 5, 1995)
Offer and Acceptance – Under the Illinois U.C.C., a price quotation that specifies the items to be sold, the quantity and price of each specified item, and the delivery terms is not hopelessly vague, as long as the remaining terms regarding warranty, excuses, remedies and the like can be inferred from trade usage. Promissory Estoppel and the Statute of Frauds – Under the Illinois U.C.C., while the statute of frauds is applicable to a claim of promissory estoppel, if the alleged promise is a price quotation and such term is in writing, the statute of frauds is not a bar to the claim. Discrepancy in Bids Does Not Create Presumption of Mistake – a bid that is more than 50% lower than another bid does not, as a matter of law place the buyer on notice that the low bid contains a mistake.

United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Evergreen Pipeline Construction Co., Inc. v. Me,
No. 90 Civ. 5106, 890 F. Supp. 1213, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9385 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1995)
Oral Requests for Extra Work – Under New York law, either oral directions to perform extra work, or a general course of dealing may effectuate a waiver or modification of contract provisions which otherwise expressly require written authorization or notice of such extra work claims. No Damage for Delay – Under New York law, an exculpatory “no damage for delay” clause will not be enforced where the delay was: 1) not contemplated by the parties 2) caused by the contractor’s bad faith, or willful, malicious, or grossly negligent conduct; 3) so unreasonable that it constituted an intentional abandonment of the contract; or, 4) the result of a fundamental breach of the contract by the contractor. Punitive Damages – Punitive damages on purely contractual claim will not be awarded where there is insufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that public rights were implicated or that objectionable conduct was directed at the public generally. Prejudgment Interest – Subcontractor is entitled to prejudgment interest for services rendered seven years before judgment was entered. Rule 11 Sanctions – Defendants’ assertion of a civil RICO counterclaim without sufficient basis therefor warrants imposition of sanctions under Rule 11. Attorney’s fees awarded as a Rule 11 sanction is a matter committed solely to the discretion of the district court. In ascertaining “reasonable” fees, the court must bear in mind that the principined a verdict in favor of subcontractor Evergreen and found that Merritt materially breached the subcontract and that certain provisions regarding extra work and delay damages were either waived or eliminated by the parties. Merritt filed various post trial motions challenging the jury’s verdict regarding: the oral requests for extra work under a contract which required that all such requests be in writing; the award of delay damages under a contract with an express “no damage for delay” provision; and challenging the propriety of permitting a claim for punitive damages to be submitted to the jury. Evergreen also filed various post trial motions seeking prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees incurred in defending baseless civil RICO claims.

Buhler, Inc. v. Reuter Recycling of Florida, Inc.,
889 F. Supp. 1126, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9815 (D. Minn. Jul. 10, 1995)
Based on interpretation of two differing arbitration provisions, an owner did not waive its right to arbitrate its claim against designer of facility and seller of equipment by failing to consolidate the arbitration proceeding with the proceeding against its general contractor.

Stacy & Witbeck, Inc. v. San Francisco,
42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 805, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 658 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 17, 1995)

A municipal public utilities commission’s order barring a contractor from bidding on the municipality’s public works projects for five years was upheld by the California appellate court where the commission found that the contractor had knowingly submitted a greatly inflated delay and disruption claim.

AyrCom Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. West Communications, Inc.,
1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 981 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 1995)

Contract which contained two unit prices for laying cable in rock was ambiguous and court admitted extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of the ambiguous provisions. Evidence regarding the contractor’s profit or loss was not admissible because its relevance was outweighed by its substantial prejudice regarding the meaning of an ambiguous contract provision. A state’s requirement of a “certificate of authority” to conduct business in the state as a prerequisite to maintaining an action was not a requirement for subject matter jurisdiction, but rather was related to a party’s capacity to sue and, therefore, was waived if not raised timely.

Associated Builders & Contractors, Golden Gate Chapter, Inc. v. Contra Costa Water District,
43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 600, 1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 734 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 1995)

California county water district performing construction financed under the provisions of state bond law was not subject to state statutes requiring competitive bidding and, therefore, its solicitation for bids which included a “project labor agreement” requiring the work to be performed with union labor was not improper.