United States ex rel. Tower Masonry, Inc. v. J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc.,
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13024, 90 Cont. Cas. Fed. [CCH] [[paragraph]] 76,843 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 8, 1995).
Prime contractor properly terminated subcontractor for non-compliance with Davis-Bacon Act requirements. Because cost to complete exceeded subcontract balance, terminated contractor not entitled to reimbursement of value of work completed.
Defendant J. Kokolakis Contracting, Inc., (“Kokolakis”), a general contractor, entered into a subcontract with plaintiff Tower Masonry, Inc. (“Tower”), for masonry work on a United States Department of Labor project involving the construction of two new dormitory buildings for the Delaware Valley Job Corps Center in Callicoon, New York. The job was subject to the minimum wage levels and record-keeping requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. [[section]]276(a) et seq., and these requirements were incorporated into the subcontract.
General Contractors
Connecticut Court Holds Prime Contractor not Required to Utilize Subcontractor Listed in Its Bid, Where It was Unaware of Bid Exclusions Later Presented by Subcontractor
By Constructlaw on
Posted in General Contractors
Harvey Robbin Co. v. Cristwood Contracting, Inc.,
1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2633 (Conn. Super. Ct., Sept. 13, 1995).
Statute requiring bidder for public contract to list subcontractors did not require bidder to utilize subcontractor where subcontractors bid exclusions were not communicated until after submission of prime bid.
Plaintiff Harvey Robbin Company, a subcontractor for HVAC (“Subcontractor”) sued Defendant Cristwood Contracting, a general contractor (“Contractor”), in connection with the construction of a physical plant at the University of Connecticut. The Subcontractor alleged, inter alia, breach of contract and detrimental reliance. In turn, the Contractor denied the Subcontractor’s principal allegations, and alleged misrepresentation on the part of the Subcontractor, and that no contract was entered into by the parties.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Multi-million Dollar Verdict for Delay Damages on Basis of Erroneous Submission of Question of Contract Interpretation to Jury
By Constructlaw on
Posted in Contracts, General Contractors
Morse/Diesel, Inc. v. Trinity Industries, Inc.; Mosher Steel Co., and Aetna Insurance Co.,
67 F.3d 435, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 27614 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 1995).
Contract provision authorizing compensation for delay, “notwithstanding any other provision . . .” held to override “no-damage-for-delay” provisions in other portions of contract as a matter of law. Trial court erred in submitting question of interpretation to jury.
Morse/Diesel, Inc. (“Morse/Diesel”) was the general contractor for the construction of the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Manhattan’s Times Square. In August, 1982, Morse/Diesel entered into a subcontract with Mosher Steel Company, a division of Trinity Industries, Inc. (“Trinity”) to fabricate and erect the steel members necessary for hotel construction within 13 months, excluding inclement weather. In fact, the job took 20 months, from January, 1983 until September, 1984. Morse/Diesel sued Trinity and Trinity’s bonding company, Aetna Insurance Company, for damages in the amount of $37 million arising from the cost of an acceleration program designed to recapture the delay, as well as losses suffered by the hotel’s owner, the architect and other subcontractors. Trinity counterclaimed for its own damages arising from additional work and delay in completing the subcontract.