Mactec, Inc. v. Bechtel Jacobs Co., LLC and Demco, Inc. v. Mactec, Inc
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60377 (E.D. Tenn. August 16, 2007)
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee held that a private contractor had no duty to verify the pricing of a bid received from a subcontractor.
Defendant Bechtel Jacobs, LLC (“Bechtel Jacobs”) entered into a contract with the United States Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Operations to demolish and dispose of several radioactively contaminated buildings in the main area of the K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Bechtel Jacobs issued a request for proposal inviting proposals from subcontractors to demolish and dispose of several radioactively contaminated buildings from the main plant. In response, Plaintiff MACTEC submitted a proposal in the amount of $3.99 million, which was later adjusted to a final contract price of $5.36 million. Bechtel Jacobs internal estimate for the cost of the project was $8.20 million. The next lowest proposal was $8.44 million. Bechtel Jacobs did not inform MACTEC that its proposal was significantly lower than Bechtel Jacobs internal estimate and significantly lower than the next lowest bidder. Bechtel Jacobs awarded MACTEC the subcontract.

U.S. ex. rel. Straightline Corp. v. American Casualty Corp.
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50688 (N.D. W. Va 2007)
The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia held that a “pay-if-paid” clause was not a valid defense to a Miller Act claim. Straightline, involved a contract dispute…

Trinity Church v. Atkin
925 A.2d 720, 2007 N.J.Super.LEXIS195 (N,J, Super, App. Div., June 27, 2007)
Contractual clauses providing for the date of accrual on construction projects are valid in New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants who allegedly performed defective renovation and construction work on a historical building because the plaintiff failed to file a timely action within the period of the statute of limitations.

Integrated Project Services v. HMS Interiors, Inc.
2007 Pa. Super 246, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2606 (Pa. Super Ct., April 16, 2007)
This is an appeal from a decision in the lower court wherein a general contractor, “Integrated Project Services, (“General Contractor”) sued a subcontractor, HMS Interiors, Inc. (“Subcontractor”) for a declaratory judgment that the Subcontractor was obligated to indemnify the General Contractor for the General Contractor’s negligence. The Subcontractor filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the lower court and the General Contractor appealed that decision.

Charles Boyd Construction Inc. v. Vacation Beach, Inc.
No. 5D06-2168, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 9597 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App., June 22, 2007)
Following the precedent of the United States Supreme Court in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2006), the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida reversed its prior decision and held that whether a contract is illegal in its entirety and, thus, an arbitration provision contained therein would be unenforceable, must in the first instance be decided by the arbitrator, and not a court.

Carlson v. SALA Architects, Inc.
2007 Minn. App. LEXIS 74
The of Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed entry of summary judgment in favor of a purchaser of architectural services, holding, among other things, that the relationship between an architect and its client is not per se a fiduciary relationship. Rather, the Court held that whether a fiduciary relationship exists was a question of fact which was unable to be resolved on summary judgment.

EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corporation
2007 VT 37; 2007 Vt. LEXIS 69 (Vt. May 25, 2007)
The Vermont Supreme Court held that the cost of an owner’s anticipated voluntary payments of employee wages and for product purchases during the temporary shutdown of a creamery pending repair of construction defects were not recoverable consequential damages because they could not reasonably have been within the contemplation of the defendant when it contracted to build the creamery.

Port Liberte Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sordoni Construction Co.
2007 N.J. Super LEXIS 168, Docket No. A-2138-04T1 (App. Div. June 4, 2007)
The New Jersey Appellate Division was asked to consider whether a condominium and a homeowners association, not in existence at the time misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions were made to the developer of a condominium development, had standing to sue contractors or subcontractors who made such misrepresentations. Relying on the statutory scheme of the New Jersey Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 et seq., (“Condo Act”) and the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 45:22A-21 et seq. (“PREDFDA”), the Appellate Division held that the associations had standing to sue.

S.M. Wilson & Company v. Urban Concrete Contractors
2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3747, No. 04-06-00227-CV (Tex. Ct. App., May 16, 2007)
A Texas Court of Appeals held that an oral change order agreement to pay for work which was, in fact, within the scope of the original contract was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
S.M. Wilson & Company (“Wilson”) entered into a contract with the Target Corporation to construct a Target Store in Austin, Texas (the “Project”). Wilson then solicited bids from subcontractors for various aspects of the Project. Urban Concrete Contractors, Ltd. (“Urban”) submitted a bid to Wilson to perform concrete work on the Project. During the pre-bid process, Wilson sent a proposed contract including Work Package 03300, which identified the scope of concrete work that Urban would be responsible for. Work Package 03300 referred to two sets of plans describing the concrete work to be performed which were not included in the package but were available to Urban for review at no charge prior to bidding.

Charles T. Driscoll Masonry Reconstruction Co., Inc. v. County of Ulster
2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6068 (N.Y. App. Div., May 17, 2007)
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York held that a construction contract must be enforced according to its terms and, therefore, oral modifications of an agreement which specifically calls for modifications to be in writing will be unenforceable. Although recognizing that written modification clauses may be waived based upon the conduct of the parties, the court found that the conduct of the parties in this case did not support a waiver.