I’d bet that all of your construction subcontracts contain some language that tries to obligate subcontractors to the prime contractor to the same extent that the prime contractor is obligated to the owner. In other words, if the prime owes certain duties to the owner, then the subcontractor owes those same duties to the prime. Sounds simple, but does it work? Is that enough to make all provisions of the prime contract part of the subcontract?
Typically, simply stating the subcontractor is bound to the prime to the same extent the prime is bound to the owner is insufficient to obligate the subcontractor to duties beyond those that are directly related to the subcontractor’s scope of work. For example, changes in the work are directly related to scope of work. So, changes clauses and related notice provisions in a prime contract would likely be incorporated into a subcontract under such a broad statement.
However, prime contract provisions not directly related to scope of work, such as a disputes clause, would not be incorporated into a subcontract under such a broad statement.
If you want to bind the subcontractor to the prime in every way the same as the prime is bound to the owner, then the incorporation clause of the subcontract should be:
- Specific (listing scope of work and the disputes provision(s)); and
- Repeated (in addition to having a typical incorporation clause, repeat in each provision of the subcontract where you want to incorporate that portion of the prime contract).
Use this diagram for this case.
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]
Roads& Bridges | Confusing Waters
CONFUSING WATERS | A Supreme Court ruling leaves room for ambiguity
What happens when there may be a “significant nexus” between “adjacent” and/or […]
Roads & Bridges | Authority Defined
AUTHORITY DEFINED | The Law of Agency is Important to Understand
For any project, this Russian proverb is helpful: Doveryay, no proveryay – […]
