Category Archives: Damages

Of Mice and Men: Yes, you need a written construction contract!

Posted on by
Field mouse

Photo by delphywnd via Flickr*

 

Does a written contract *really* matter?   Yes; yes it does.

While you can get by for years- decades, even- on handshake deals—when something goes wrong you will wish you had a written contract.  Even the best projects, with familiar clients and trusted contractors, can go awry.  (“The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”).

Many of my clients come to me after having been in business 20, 30 years or more.  They come to me because they have either already been sued, or the handwriting is on the wall and they are about to be brought into litigation.  They tell me they’ve never needed a written contract before now.  That’s well and good.  However, I’d bet dollars to donuts those same folks have fire insurance, and yet very few if any of them have actually experienced a house fire.  What’s different about business contracts?

The goal, of course, is that you will never need to rely on the written provisions in your contract.  But if you ever find yourself facing a lawsuit, you’ll wish you had a written contract.

A written contract spells out expectations, rights, and responsibilities.  It sets standards that may be understood by the parties, but very different from what the common law would allow.  Without a written contract, you are trusting yourself to laws you may not agree with or giving up protections you may otherwise have.  Why chance it?

Get something in writing—a signed proposal, an email which is confirmed—something that spells out basic agreements that might come into dispute later.  A thorough contract written for each project is ideal, though not always practical on smaller, quick-turn deals.  That’s fine.  But get something on paper.  You’ll be glad you did, if and when you ever find yourself on the courthouse steps.

 ————–

*Photo: Have you seen the Muffin Mouse by delphwynd via Flickr and made available via Creative Commons license.

Pay When Paid Clauses in the NC Construction Contract

Posted on by

“Pay when paid” clauses are clauses found in many construction contracts that state that the contractor will pay his subcontractor only if and/or when the contractor receives payment from the owner.   Are these clauses enforceable?  The answer depends on (1) what state you are in and (2) what choice of law provision is contained in your construction contract.

A limited number of states do honor “pay when paid” clauses under the theory that the parties are usually sophisticated parties who negotiated the contract terms and as such they are duty bound to honor those terms.   When such a clause is enforced, it can prove fatal in a case where the owner files bankruptcy or otherwise defaults on its payments to the general contractor.

In North Carolina,  such clauses are unenforceable as against public policy.

Performance by a subcontractor in accordance with the provisions of its contract shall entitle it to payment from the party with whom it contracts. Payment by the owner to a contractor is not a condition precedent for payment to a subcontractor and payment by a contractor to a subcontractor is not a condition precedent for payment to any other subcontractor, and an agreement to the contrary is unenforceable.

N. C. Gen. Stat. Section 22C-2.

Does that mean that, if you are a subcontractor, you don’t need to worry about such “pay when paid” clauses in North Carolina?  Not necessarily.  It depends on what law is the law that will be applied by the court.  If your contract states that the law of another state will apply, you need to know if that state is one in which “pay when paid” clauses are enforceable.  In some states, such as Virginia, the contract is king and whatever the contract says will be enforced.  Such clauses are also generally enforceable in a few other states such as Connecticut and Michigan.

Other states take a more cautious view, and hold that such clauses are only enforceable if unambiguously written, including  Arizona, Ohio, and Massachusetts.

States which concur with North Carolina’s view that such clauses are unenforceable include New York, California, and South Carolina.

Therefore, it is important to know not only what your contract says, but what state’s law will apply to your contract.

Because case law and statutes change the law regularly, consult a licensed attorney in the jurisdiction you are concerned about to learn the latest status of contingent payment clauses in that jurisdiction.

ConsensusDOCS- are they an improvement over AIA construction contracts?

Posted on by

Have you had occasion to use the (relatively) new ConsensusDOCS? Having just completed my manuscript for the North Carolina Construction Law seminar I’m speaking at in May, I’ve been spending a lot of time comparing the American Institute of Architect’s standard contract general conditions, the AIA A201 (2007) to the ConsensusDOCS 200 (2007) and the Engineering Joint Contracts Document Committee (EJCDC) standard general conditions of the contract, C-700 (2007).

I haven’t yet seen litigation over the ConsensusDOCS, so how courts will interpret its provisions remains to be seen. One major difference: the ConsensusDOCS do diminish some of the architect/design professional’s role on the project.

For example, in the change order process, instead of the architect being involved in the contract price and time adjustment (see AIA A201 Section 7.2.1), the ConsensusDOCS 200 calls for the owner and contractor to negotiate in good faith. No mention is made of the design professional’s role. (See 8.1.2).

If you’ve had occasion to work under the ConsensusDOCS, drop me a line and tell me the advantages and disadvantages over other form contracts.

What is not in your construction contract can be just as important as what is in the contract

Posted on by

Ever wonder why lawyers like to write contracts that seem to go on, and on, and on? By nature, lawyers are doomsayers. We try to minimize risk, and sometimes that takes the form of a contract that “only a lawyer could love”.

We will cover important contract terms in future blog posts, but for now, did you know that what is not in your construction contract is just as important as what is in there? Many times the heart of a construction dispute stems from confusion or mistaken assumptions about what, exactly, was agreed upon.

In addition to having a very detailed “Scope of Services,” in which you specify exactly what you will be doing on a project, you should also develop a standard “Exclusions from Services” list, and that list should be a part of every contract.

Such an exclusion list should include:
— anything you were specifically asked not to perform
— anything the owner indicated was to be provided by others
— anything which involves specific contractor coordination (unless
you are providing this service)
— a listing of anything above and beyond normal conditions (for
example, “attendance at more than X meetings a month”)
— a general “catch all” statement that anything not specifically
specified in the Scope of Services is not covered

Of course, what specific things should be listed in your Exclusions list depends on what field of construction you are in. Design professionals need to focus on coordination issues, duties with respect to other design professionals on a large project, duties relating to oversight of contractor work, and related issues. Contractors should focus on their responsibility to work with and/or around other trades as well as related work that the owner does not intend to pay for which can result in scope creep.

While it might seem like wearing belts and suspenders at the same time to write out a Scope of Services and also include an Exclusion from Services list, the minimal extra effort in developing such an Exclusion list will pay you back in volumes should a dispute on the project ever arise.

Photo (c) Markus Spiske.

Failure to Coordinate in Design-Bid-Build case costly mistake

Posted on by

In a recent Business Court decision, an architecture firm was hit with a $2.3+ million judgment stemming from the design and construction of the kitchen exhaust and HVAC ductwork systems in the Charlotte Bobcats Arena.

The project was a “fast track” project, and the architecture firm claimed they were only contracted to provide diagrammatical drawings of the arena’s ductwork system. Subcontractors on the project sued for their cost to perform extra work to remedy alleged design deficiencies. Post-trial relief is currently being sought by the architectural firm (including a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or a new trial on the damages issue).

Whether or not such post-trial motions are granted, however, the case raises the very real issue as to architectural responsibility versus contractor coordination responsibility, especially in fast-track projects. This case highlights the risks to architects in failing to make their responsibilities and contractual limitations explicitly clear to both owners and contractors. The case also highlights the need to explicitly review shop drawings for coordination issues that might be present.

The case is Hunt Construction Group Inc. et al. v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Ellerbe Becket Inc., case number 08-11915, in the Mecklenburg County Superior Court.