Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc.
C.A. No. 990869, 2001 Utah LEXIS 90 (June 26, 2001)
In SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the ability to assign of claims for damages for breach of contract to a party who is not in privity with the alleged wrongdoer. That court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate because it was ambiguous whether the parties intended to include the assignment of causes of action under a “no assignment” clause. Id. at *16.

BAE Automated Sys., Inc. v. Morse Diesel Int’l, Inc.
01 Civ. 0217 (SAS), 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6682 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2001)
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted an order staying all proceedings in a construction dispute pending resolution by a dispute resolution board (“DRB”) in this case. This case involved a breach of contract claim brought by BAE Automated Systems, Inc. (“BAE”), a baggage handling subcontractor, against AMEC Construction Management, Inc. (“AMEC”), the construction manager of a project to build a new terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport (the “Project”). AMEC then brought a third-party claim against the owner of the Project, Terminal One Group Association (“TOGA”).

McCandlish Electric, Inc. v. Will Construction Co.
No. 18935-0-III, 2001 Wash. App. LEXIS 1364 (June 28, 2001)
Will Construction Co. (“Will”) was awarded a contract from the City of Leavenworth for renovations to a wastewater treatment plant. In its successful bid, Will had used a bid from McCandlish Electric, Inc. (“McCandlish”) submitted for the electrical subcontract. Will also listed McCandlish, pursuant to contract, as the electrical subcontractor in its bid submission to the City.

Cullum Mechanical Construction, Inc. v. South Carolina Baptist Hospital
Case Volume, Reporter: 344 S.C. 426, 544 S.E.2d 838 (2001)
Jenkins, Hancock & Sides Architects & Planners, Inc. (the “Architect”) entered into a design contract for the renovation of a medical center. Under its contract, the Architect was responsible for reviewing the General Contractor’s payment applications and certifying amounts due. Moreover, the Architect had the ability to withhold certification if the General Contractor failed to pay its subcontractors.

A. Servidone, Inc. v. Bridge Technologies, LLC,
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1407 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 8, 2001)
Servidone contracted with the State Department of Transportation to build three bridges. Pursuant to that contract, Servidone subcontracted with Bridge Technologies, Inc., for installation of the superstructures of two of the bridges. During the performance of the subcontract work, Bridge Technologies, Inc. was dissolved, and its parent corporation, Bridge Technologies Ltd. continued the performance of the subcontract. Servidone, however, was not notified of the dissolution.

Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. City of Salem,
No. 28202, 2001 W. Va. LEXIS 3 (W. Va. Feb. 9, 2001)
The City of Salem, West Virginia, entered into a contract with Kanakanui Associates pursuant to which Kanakanui was to provide engineering and architectural services for improvements to Salem’s existing sewer system. Kanakanui produced plans and specifications to be used to solicit bids for the improvements. Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. bid on a portion of the project relying on the plans provided by Kanakanui and was awarded the contract.

Worth Constr. Co. v. I.T.R.I. Masonry Corp.,
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2144 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2001)
Worth Construction entered into a masonry subcontract with ITRI Masonry for a correctional facility in New York. Due to cash flow concerns, ITRI requested and Worth acquiesced to an arrangement where Worth would pay ITRI’s actual payroll costs, but not payroll taxes or benefits, on a weekly basis. These costs would then be deducted from ITRI’s monthly progress payment. Nevertheless, ITRI began to fall behind in its payments to vendors and its workforce. Subsequently Worth began paying ITRI’s payroll and suppliers by joint check. Eventually Worth terminated ITRI for nonperformance on March 13, 1998 and hired all of ITRI’s tradesmen and supervisors to complete the masonry work.

Sinco, Inc. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad Co.,
99 Civ. 10631 (AKH), 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1986 (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 2001)
The district court considered whether a tender so defective as to undermine the buyer’s confidence in seller’s ability to cure renders the seller’s attempts to cure futile. The court declined to adopt the “shaken faith” or “loss of confidence” doctrine to relieve the buyer of a fall protection system for the safety of its workers from its contractual duty to accept the seller’s attempted cure. Ultimately, however, the court granted summary judgment to the buyer after finding the seller’s attempts to cure were ineffective.

Harbor Court Assoc. v. Leo A. Daly Co.,
179 F.3d 147 (4th Cir. 1999)
The plaintiffs, Harbor Court Associates and Murdock Development Company (“HCA/Murdock”) were the developers of Harbor Court Complex, located in the Inner Harbor area of Baltimore, Maryland. On April 28, 1983, HCA/Murdock hired Leo Daly (“Daly”), an architect with a principal place of business is in Nebraska, to design and construct the project. The parties used an A.I.A. document, which stated that, for disputes arising out of the contract: “any applicable statute of limitations shall commence to run and any alleged cause of action shall be deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than the relevant Date of Substantial Completion of the Work, and [as to any failures occurring after substantial completion] not later than the date of issuance of the Final Certificate of Payment.”

17 Vista Fee Assocs. v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Assoc. of America,
1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7981 (July 15, 1999)
The plaintiffs/third-party plaintiffs 17 Vista Fee Associates and 17 Vista Associates (“17 Vista”) entered into a sale agreement with defendant Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America (“TIAA”), pursuant to which 17 Vista was to construct an office building at 17 State Street in Manhattan, and to sell it to TIAA upon completion. To obtain a certificate of occupancy for the building, the sales agreement required 17 Vista to perform several tasks, including construction of the building’s smoke purge system. 17 Vista retained Third-Party Defendant Jaros Baum & Bolles (“JB&B”), a mechanical engineer, to perform design services for the building.