A client asked me about a contract he was asked to sign in which consequential damages were being waived. Consequential damages are those things that cost money which arise indirectly out of a failure of a party on a construction project. They can include:
- loss of use
- loss of rent
- loss of profit
- loss of bonding capacity
- extended overhead
- extended equipment rental fees
- increased material costs
Note that this is not an exhaustive list, and other consequential damages may be applicable depending on the project.
The standard industry contracts all have at least some waiver of consequential damages, as noted in this chart.
Bottom line: waiver of consequentials can be a good thing or a bad thing, but you will not know which when you are signing on the dotted line.
Just make sure that if there is a waiver, that it is mutual on both sides. Good luck, and “be safe out there”
Your turn. Have you ever waived your right to consequentials? Horror story to share about paying someone else’s costs? Share in the comment section.Dollar Photo (c) sivlen001. Chart (c) Melissa Brumback
Which standard form contract provides “better” protection for copyright issues- ConsensusDOCS or AIA? The ever-so-hepful “it depends” is, as usual, the answer.
Are you the owner looking to use the plans you paid for even after you terminate an architect, or are you the architect looking to protect your work product? If you are the owner, you will probably prefer ConsensusDOCS. If you are the architect, your best bet is still the AIA documents.
Consider the following:
Under ConsensusDOCS 240,
- the Owner receives ownership (except copyrights) of all documents, drawings, and data prepared by the architect or consultants for the Project, upon final payment for all sums due in the event of termination (Article 10.1).
- the Owner has the option of being granted copyright ownership, contingent on making all payments required, including a stated copyright fee. (Article 10.1.1).
- whether termination is for convience or for cause by either party, the Owner can use the documents to complete the project, provided he pays all sums due (Article 10.1.2).
- the Owner agrees to indemnify the architect for post-construction use of documents. (Article 10.1.3).
Under AIA B101,
- the architect and consultants are the owners of their respective instruments of service, retaining all rights, including copyrights (Article 7.2).
- the Owner is granted a non-exclusive license in the instruments of service, soley for use in constructing, using, maintaining, altering and adding to the Project, provided the owner substantially performs, inclduing making prompt payments of all sums due (Article 7.3).
- if the Owner does not pay all sums due, if the architect terminates the contract for cause, or if the Owner does not pay an extra fee after a termination for convenience, the Owner’s non-exclusive license terminates. (Article 7.3; Article 11.9).
- the Owner must indemnify the architect against third party claims arising from the owner’s unauthorized use of documents. (Article 7.3.1).
- if the Owner properly terminates the architect for cause, there is no indemnity against third party claims and no release of the architect from the owner’s claims arising from the use of the docuemnts (Article 7.3.1).
Do you have experience in managing copyright issues under either contract? Which do you prefer? Leave your thoughts in the comments section, below.
Next week, I’ll address copyright issues in non-standard construction contracts, including letter proposals.
Photo (c) Horia Varlan via Creative Commons license.
Today’s Guest Post is by Nathan B. Hinch, an associate at Mueller & Reece, LLC in Bloomington, Illinois, concentrating in the practice of commercial, construction, environmental, and real estate law. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and on twitter @NathanHinch.
Form Construction Contracts – How Do They Compare, and How Should They Be Used?
By Nathan B. Hinch
Imagine that you are a contractor from the mythical State of Verbalville, a land where the handshake deal is the norm and no one ever puts anything in writing. If a developer/owner awarded you a project and asked you to sign an AIA Document A101™ form construction contract, along with AIA Document A201™ General Conditions, would you sign it without reading the document? Of course not. Assuming that you were willing to consider bucking the verbal trend and sign the document at all, you would likely read it over very carefully first. You might also consult an attorney, to help you understand the potential risks and liability issues involved with the contract, including the enforceability of the contract under Verbalville State law, and suggest changes to the document.
Now imagine that you are a contractor in my home State of Illinois and are awarded a project in North Carolina. If the developer/owner handed you a ConsensusDOCS® 200 form construction contract with general conditions and asked you to sign, would you do so without reading it? Would you consult a professional attorney before signing? What if you were familiar with the form documents from your work in Illinois? Would it matter if it was an EJCDC document instead?
I have worked with AIA, ConsensusDOCS®, and EJCDC form documents, and all three are excellent resources that in the right hands can help save time and money for construction projects. But here’s the point – form contracts are wonderful tools that can help allocate risk and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the parties, but that is all they are.
In the construction field, the leading form contracts have been drafted by teams of experts representing the interest groups in general and supporting teams of attorneys. If you have never used or read one of these before, I would encourage you to take an evening and read through at least one of those mentioned above. Given the detail of the documents, it may be difficult to imagine that these forms, without editing, are likely not specific enough for your project. But keep in mind as you read that these are national forms and are meant to be of use throughout the U.S. By definition these forms do not generally consider 1) variations in State law requirements and 2) your particular project needs or goals. For that reason, credible forms such as those produced by AIA, ConsensusDOCS®, or EJCDC will encourage users to consult an attorney before using the document for specific projects. They are not meant for “plug and play” use.
For a great reference comparing these forms, see Gillies, Heckman, and Perlberg, THE Construction Contracts Book: How to Find Common Ground in Negotiating Design and Construction Clauses, American Bar Association 2008. The EJCDC and ConsensusDOCS websites both provide a matrix from this book for PDF download. The book may be purchased from the ABA website here.
[Ed note: I second Nathan’s book recommendation, which is a great resource for anyone considering the pros and cons of each set of form documents.]
Nathan and I look forward to answering your comments, thoughts, and questions. Drop us a note!
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is holding a training seminar on key parts of the EJCDC form contracts. The seminar, entitled “Critical Design-Build Contract Provisions: Understand Legal Issues That Can Put Your Firm in Hot Water“, is scheduled to address several topics and the EJCDC take on those issues, including:
- Errors and Omissions–Handling of E & O under design-build is complicated due to inability to invoke the betterment rule.
- Licensing Laws–Since the Design-Build entity holds itself out to be both the “designer-of-record” and the “constructor-of-record”, appropriate professional registrations and business licenses need to be in place.
- Protests of D-B Bids and Proposals–What to do with protests of design-build procurements includes practical lessons for engineers
- Design Reviews–Conduct of design reviews under design-build may differ from traditional periodic reviews, because an owner can place itself in a responsible position by dictating changes during the review process rather than relying on the D-B entity to deliver an end-result in conformance with the design.
- Performance Guarantees–In some instances, owners seek to tie the design-builder to some strict performance standard.
- Who Owns the Design–On some government design-build contracts, the owner is insisting on owning the design product.
- Teaming Arrangements–There are many ways for engineers to participate in design-build contracts. Is your risk tolerance such that your firm can go “at risk” or would it be advisable for the firm to retain its agency status?
The Webinar is scheduled for Wednesday, April 20th from 1:30 to 3:00 PM, Eastern Time. Fees are $199 (members) /$299 (nonmembers). Click here to register.
Upcoming on the blog: a guest post discussing one practitioner’s use of each of three main form documents. Stay tuned!
The chart is produced by the folks at ConsensusDocs, so I’m sure any ambiguities were interpreted in their favor. That being said, if you are considering using a different standard form contract for your next project, you might want to check it out!
Have you taken the plunge into the ConsensusDocs? Prefer to stick by the tried and true AIA documents? Are you an EJCDC maverick instead? Drop me a line to tell me why you use the contract you do.
Photo (c) This is Chris via Creative Commons License.