breach of contract

Subscribe to breach of contract via RSS

Ed Kimber Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co.
No. 3:03cv2111 (SRU), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3323 (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2006)
Trataros Construction, Inc. (“Trataros”), the general contractor on a school addition and renovation project, subcontracted with Ed Kimber Heating & Cooling, Inc. (“Kimber”) for the performance of HVAC and plumbing work. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. (“Travelers”) issued payment and performance bonds as the surety for Trataros.

Gustine Uniontown Assocs., LTD v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc.
2006 PA Super 12 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)
In conjunction with its construction of a shopping mall over a non-functioning coal mine, project owner Gustine entered into a standard American Institute of Architect form of agreement, AIA B141, with the project architect ASG. Article 9.3 of the contract stated:
“Causes of action between the parties to this Agreement pertaining to acts or failures to act shall be deemed to have accrued and the applicable statutes of limitations shall commence to run not later than either the date of Substantial Completion for acts or failures to act occurring prior to Substantial Completion, or the date of issuance of the final Certificate for Payment for acts or failures to act occurring after Substantial Completion.”

City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co
2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006)
In City of Ferndale v. Florence Cement Co. and Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2006 Mich. App. LEXIS 129, No. 254572 (January 17, 2006), the Court held that the engineer’s decision under the disputes resolution provision of the contract did not constitute a final and binding arbitration award.

LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc.
No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005)
In LBL Skysystems (USA), Inc. v. APG-America, Inc., No. 02-5379, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19065 (E.D.Pa. Aug. 31, 2005), the District Court concluded that a subcontractor was contractually obligated to continue performance, despite its dispute with the contractor over alleged extra work. Further, the Court concluded that the subcontractor was in the wrong, as its course of performance demonstrated that certain steel work was, in fact, within the subcontractor’s original work scope. As a result, the Court concluded that the contractor’s decision to terminate the subcontract was proper.

Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al.
No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005)
In Daniel Marr & Son Co. v. Coreslab Structures, Inc. et al., No. 03-1880, 2005 Mass. Super. LEXIS 545, (Mass. Supp. Nov. 21, 2005), plaintiff sub-subcontractor sued defendant subcontractor for various breaches of contract related to the construction and erection of precast concrete panels. The original scope of work dictated the erection of the precast panels would proceed on a floor-by-floor basis. During the project, the defendant order plaintiff to alter the erection sequence, requiring plaintiff to install the precast panels on an as-directed basis. Plaintiff subsequently asserted a claim for productivity inefficiencies related to the revised sequence and other issues. Defendant attacked Plaintiff’s damages calculations as an “unsegregated partial total cost claim.”

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. David A. Bramble, Inc.
388 Md. 195, 879 A.2d 101 (Md. July 21, 2005)
In connection with construction of a resort hotel project, general contractor Clark Construction provided a payment bond securing its obligation to pay its subcontractors for all labor, material, and equipment required. The bond was a standard American Institute of Architects document A312 form, used without alteration to the form language, issued jointly by three sureties. In the event claim was made against the bond, it provided that the surety would “Send an answer to the Claimant, with a copy to the Owner, within 45 days after receipt of the claim, stating the amounts that are undisputed and the basis for challenging any amounts that are disputed.”

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”).

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.

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.