Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact the construction industry, and many countries continue to implement new or more stringent restrictions on entry into their borders. Those travel restrictions can impact any company with cross-border supply chains or employee travel. This article addresses some of the travel restrictions in place in the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union (EU); exceptions to those requirements; and some best practices when navigating across borders.

Mealey’s International Arbitration Report – Nov. 2020
[Editor’s Note: Copyright # 2020, LexisNexis. All rights reserved.]
Commentary by Troutman Pepper Partner Albert Bates, Jr.

Mealey’s International Arbitration Report recently asked industry experts and leaders for their thoughts on what events had an impact on global economy that have led to an increase in filings. We would like to thank the following individuals for sharing their thoughts on this important issue.

  • Sarah Reynolds, Partner, Mayer Brown, Chicago
  • Peter A. Halprin, Partner, Pasich LLP, New York
  • Helen Conybeare Williams, Counsel & Solici­tor Advocate, Haynes and Boone LLP, London
  • Sandra Smith Thayer, Partner, Pasich LLP, Los Angeles
  • Lisa Houssiere, Principal, McKool Smith, Houston
  • Gene Burd, Partner, FisherBroyles, Washington
  • Albert Bates Jr., Partner, Troutman Pepper, Pittsburgh
  • Charlie Lightfoot, Co-chair of International Arbitration Practices and Managing Partner, Jenner & Block, London
  • Thomas Wingfield, Associate, Jenner & Block, London.

When is it going to return to “normal”? We all have been asking that question. Well, for the construction industry, it may never return to “normal.” COVID-19 may have permanently changed the landscape of the construction industry in many ways. Depending on your perspective, many changes could be for the better. We may have to alter how we do business to address some new issues and business concerns. Here are just a few issues that the pandemic has brought to the forefront of our industry.

On June 8, 2020, Level 10 Construction, LP (“Level 10”), a construction company hired by Sea World San Diego (“Sea World”), filed a Complaint in California federal court alleging that Sea World is withholding over $3.2 million dollars in payments from Level 10. In the Complaint, Level 10 alleged that Sea World has declined to issue payments until the Sea World park reopens. Sea World has remained closed since March 2020 due to COVID-19.

P.A.L. Environmental Safety Corp. v. North American Dismantling Corp. Et Al., No. 19-11630, 2020 BL 198779 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020)

A Michigan federal court partially granted Consumers Energy Company’s (“CEC”) motion to dismiss P.A.L. Environmental Safety Corporation’s (“PAL”) complaint alleging numerous causes of action in connection with its suit against CEC and contractor North American Dismantling Corporation (“NADC”) for outstanding payment stemming from asbestos abatement work at a CEC-owned power plant in Essexville, Michigan (the “Power Plant”).

According to the decision, CEC, as owner, and NADC, as prime contractor, entered into a written contract whereby NADC agreed to abate, dismantle, and demolish the Power Plant.  In turn, NADC subcontracted with PAL to perform abatement of all asbestos containing material at the Power Plant.  While the subcontract price was $7,996,331, PAL alleged entitlement to an adjusted price of $23,841,833 in unpaid labor and materials for its asbestos abatement work.  Specifically, PAL alleges that it performed additional work not accounted for in the subcontract including fly ash and coal dust removal, refractory brick abatement, and extra asbestos removal.

While PAL’s complaint included numerous counts against Defendants NADC, CEC, and labor and material payment bond surety North American Specialty Insurance Company (“NASIC”), the opinion is most notable for its treatment of CEC’s motion to dismiss several counts against it including: (i) quasi-contractual claims; (ii) a third-party breach of contract claim; and (iii) a negligent misrepresentation claim.