Contracts

Subscribe to Contracts via RSS

Cates Constr., Inc. v. Talbot Partners et al.,
1999 Cal. LEXIS 4847 (Co. July 29, 1999)
In 1989, defendant Talbot Partners (“Talbot”) hired plaintiff Cates Construction, Inc. (“Cates”) to build a condominium project in Malibu, California. The construction contract required Cates to have the project ready for occupancy in eight months. The contract also required Cates to furnish a performance bond and a labor and materials bond, both of which were subsequently issued by Transamerica Insurance Company (“Transamerica”).

Ellett Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States,
93 F.3d 1537, U.S. App. LEXIS, August 26, 1996
A settlement proposal in response to a termination for the convenience of the Government is a non-routine claim subject to the jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Act, provided that the settlement proposal ripens into a claim after negotiations have reached an impasse.

Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Merit Contracting, Inc.,
99 F.3d 248, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28280 (U.S. Ct. of Appeals, 7th Cir.)
Contract between the parties contained an enforceable forum selection clause, even though the actual written agreement was signed by only one of the parties; therefore, suit brought in Illinois state court pursuant to the forum selection clause, was not removable to Federal Court.

Neal & Co., Inc. v. City of Dillingham and CH2M Hill Northwest, Inc.,
923 P.2d 89 (Alaska 1996)
In February of 1987, the City of Dillingham (“City”) solicited bids for the construction of a sewerage facility, which would include two lagoon ponds. CH2M Hill (“Hill”), the City’s engineer and on-site representative, had completed a geotechnical survey and data summary, which was provided to interested bidders. Neal & Company, Inc. (“NCI”) was declared the low bidder at $2,059,991 and began excavation on June 6, 1987.

Olympus Corp. v. United States,
98 F.3d 1314, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 27509 (U.S. Fed. Cir., Oct. 23, 1996)
 Standard “Differing Site Conditions” clause in Government contract requires, as a condition to recovery under that clause, that the alleged differing condition which serves as the basis of the claim must have existed at the time the contract was executed.

Central Florida Plastering and Development, et al. v. Sovran Constr. Co., Inc.,
679 So.2d 1226 (1996)
Sovran Construction Company, Inc. (“Sovran”) contracted with the Orange County School Board (“School Board”) to construct the Cypress Creek High School. Sovran, in turn, subcontracted with Central Florida Plastering and Development Company, Inc. (“CFP”) requiring CFP to install lath and stucco panels on the exterior walls and to install ceiling framing in the auditorium. The contract between Sovran and the School Board obligated Sovran to pay to the School Board liquidated damages of $1,000 per day, and Sovran’s subcontracts with CFP called for CFP to indemnify Sovran “on account of any such damages and additional costs as a result of delays of CFP.”

Interwest Construction v. A.H. Palmer & Sons,
292 Utah Adv. Rep. 27, 1996 Utah LEXIS 44 (Utah June 14, 1996)
The Supreme Court of Utah held that the intermediate court of appeals erred in holding that a tort action for negligence and strict liability arising out of a breach of contractually defined obligations was precluded. However, the Supreme Court of Utah also held that the tort claims should be dismissed because the claimant failed to prove causation between the alleged defect and the resultant injury.

Allgood Electric Co. v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co.,
85 F.3d 1547, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15252 (11th Cir. June 25, 1996)
Under Georgia law, subcontractor’s release of all claims against property on which project was located did not operate to release claims against contractor, nor was contractor entitled to benefit of release in which contractor was not mentioned by name.
Plaintiff Allgood Electric Company (“Allgood”) was the electrical subcontractor on a prison project for the Georgia Building Authority (“GBA”). Defendant Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. (“Eby”) was the general contractor. Allgood sought to recover increased costs allegedly caused by Eby’s failure to coordinate various aspects of the project. Allgood also claimed entitlement to retainage.

Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8427 (D.D.C. June 6, 1996)
Corps of Engineers Board of Contract Appeals erred in reducing amount of contractual liquidated damages from $1000 to $500 per day; Board should have declared provision unenforceable and awarded actual damages. 
The defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) contracted with plaintiff Kingston Contractors, Inc. (“Kingston”) to remove and destroy existing electrical transformers in WMATA’s rapid transit rail system, and procure and install replacement transformers. The contract contained a liquidated damages provision which provided for $1000 for each calendar day of delay beyond a specified completion date.