Here’s the situation – You’ve done the extra work because you were verbally asked and you strive to do a good job. But now, the Owner or Prime won’t pay because your Contract or Subcontract precludes payment without a written change order.
Even if your agreement can only be modified by a writing, you may still have a good argument to be paid for extra work.
Consider your prior dealings with the Owner or Prime on the current project and on prior projects. Have you ever been paid for extra work without a written change order? If yes, then you could still get paid even though the contract requires a written change order or other written agreement. The more frequently this happens between you and the other party, the better your chances of payment.
The Virginia Supreme Court has held a subcontract clause requiring a written agreement for changes did not pertain to work outside the scope of the original subcontract. Instead, the Subcontractor’s invoices were sufficient written documentation to show subsequent, separate agreements for the extra work. The Subcontractor’s daily reports supported that the Subcontractor actually performed the extra work. Also important is that the subcontract did not include a provision that excluded all other negotiations from the Subcontract (i.e., a merger or integration clause).
Medlin & Son Construction Co. v. The Matthews Group, Inc., No. 160050 (Va. Nov. 23, 2016)
Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend Under Eight Corners Rule
To decide if an insurer has a duty to defend, a Virginia State or Federal Court may only look at the allegations in the complaint and the insurance policy to determine if a judgment against the insured will be covered by the policy.
Owner SOL When Mandatory Mediation Didn’t Toll Statute of Limitations
Contract interpretation strives to find the meaning of all parts together.
Government Must Review Claims in Good Faith, Not “Conjure Up” a “Baseless Retaliation”
A contracting officer’s review of certified claims submitted in good faith is not intended to be a negotiating game where the agency may deny meritorious claims to gain leverage over the contractor.
Termination for Convenience was OK to Get a Lower Price
When Massachusetts’ highest State court rejected Federal law on termination for convenience (T4C) a public entity’s “sole discretion . . . for […]
Pirates (Parties) Should Arbitrate Arbitrability
Yes, the word “pirates” is an anagram for “parties.” Participants in a lawsuit, arbitration, or mediation are collectively referred to as parties. Are they pirates too?
Very Bad Behavior Without Bad Faith is Not a Breach of Contract
Despite “abhorrent” behavior by the Army Corps of Engineers, a majority of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals held there was […]
Government Construction Contracts Require Bonds, Even When Contract Doesn’t Say So
Yesterday (Nov. 5, 2018), the Fed. Cir. Ct. of Appeals again endorsed the Christian doctrine, which can make unstated requirements part of a government contract.
Government’s Negligent Estimate a Trick?
The Government’s negligent estimate failed to provide the “most current information available.”
Prime Contractor Had No Duty to Help Surety Investigate Sub’s Default
We all know what happens when we “ASS-U-ME” something. So, we should all carefully avoid assuming things unnecessarily.










