Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

United States ex rel. Spirtas Worldwide, LLC v. SGLC Consulting LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00182-MAB, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105589; 2022 WL 2116451 (S.D. Ill. June 13, 2022)

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois recently enforced a partially executed agreement to arbitrate where the party that failed to countersign demonstrated assent through its acts and conduct.

Triple B Servs., LLP v. City of Conroe, No. 09-21-00096-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 4824, 2022 WL 2720451 (Tex. App. July 14, 2022)

The Texas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling granting the city of Conroe governmental immunity from a contractor’s lawsuit asserting claims for breach of contract and violation of the Texas Public Prompt Pay Act.

Pizzarotti, LLC v. X-Treme Concrete Inc., 205 A.D.3d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)

A New York appellate court recently affirmed the dismissal of a subcontractor’s counterclaims for delay damages and for unpaid amounts because they were barred by the parties’ no-damage-for-delay provision and executed lien waivers, respectively.

Constructural Dynamics, Inc. v. Thomas P. Carney, Inc., No. 1104 EDA 2021, 2022 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1500 (Pa. Super. July 1, 2022), reargument denied (Sept. 8, 2022).

Like many prompt payment acts, Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA) permits owners and contractors to withhold payment for good faith claims — but not forever. Owners and contractors who wait too long could find themselves litigating prompt payment claims and paying the penalties those acts impose on procrastinating payors. A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court provides some guidance on how long is “too long” to withhold.

Town of New Milford v. Std. Demolition Srvcs., Inc., 212 Conn. App. 30 (2022)

The case involved cleanup and environmental remediation of a vacant factory contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls and asbestos. The town of New Milford (Town) contracted with Standard Demolition Services, Inc. (Contractor) to perform the third phase of this cleanup and remediation. Following a series of disputes and project delays, the Town terminated the Contractor. At the time of termination, the Contractor had performed less than 10% of its scope of work. The Town then rebid the remaining work and hired a third-party to complete the project.

Bank of America, N.A. v. ASD Gem Realty LLC, 205 A.D.3d 1, 164 N.Y.S.3d 566 (2022).

ASD Gem Realty LLC and ASD Diamond, Inc. (together, ASD or Owner) contracted Sweet Construction Corp. (Sweet) to renovate a commercial space in Manhattan’s Diamond District (the Project). ASD solicited proposals for the supply and installation of partitions in the space (the Work) and ultimately directed Sweet to hire Arenson Office Furnishings, Inc. (Arenson). Arenson subsequently entered into a subcontract with Sweet to complete the Work (the Subcontract).

DonRob Invs., L. P. v. 360 Residential, LLC, 870 S.E.2d 874 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

This case arose from a failed real estate transaction. DonRob Investments LP and Donald Robinson Investments, Inc. (collectively DonRob) agreed to sell, and 360 Residential LLC, 360 Sugar Hill LLC, and 360 Capital Company LLC, (collectively 360) agreed to purchase 12 acres (Site) of a 37-acre parcel of property in Sugar Hill, GA (the Agreement). The Site was in the middle of the parcel and flanked by two sections over which DonRob was to retain ownership. 360 planned to build apartments on the Site. DonRob planned to develop the other two sections into townhomes and commercial units.

Taylor Morrison of Tex. Inc. v. Caballero, No. 01-20-00800-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 1870, 2022 WL 839429 (Mar. 22, 2022)

Gary and Kelley Caballero contracted to purchase a new home to be constructed by Taylor Woodrow and Taylor Morrison of Texas, Inc. (Taylor). The contract contained an agreement to arbitrate any disputes with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

The Economic Loss Doctrine and its various analogues (e.g., the Independent Duty Rule and the Gist of the Action Doctrine) vary in form and application, but each is a judge-made rule serving one principle: If a party seeks the same economic losses for breach of contract and breach of a common law tort duty, courts must bar the tort claim to prevent a duplicative, windfall recovery. Most frequently, the Economic Loss Doctrine bars negligence claims. Its outer bounds begin with intentional torts, and most jurisdictions do not apply the Economic Loss Doctrine to fraud claims.