I promise that any disputes between us will be argued at your house. Time passes and a dispute begins to brew. Now, I want to argue at my house, not at yours. You pay costs to argue at my house that you wouldn’t have incurred had I done as agreed. Should I have to reimburse your costs?
A Federal Court in Northern California said yes – I have to pay your costs because I broke my promise.
During a project for the U.S. Navy in Djibouti for electrical and mechanical power-plant upgrades, a Subcontractor agreed that any disputes between it and the Prime Contractor would be resolved in a California Federal Court. The Prime is a U.S. company with its headquarters in California. The Sub is a Lebanese company with no regular presence in the U.S. In fact, it appears the Sub has never been to the U.S.
Recap: The dispute has nothing to do with anything near your headquarters/office/house, the Project is nowhere near your office, I’ve never been near your office, it’s probably more convenient for you to argue near your office, which is why you included this term in the Subcontract, and (most importantly) I agreed to only argue near your office.
Result: The argument will be near your office, not mine and not near the Project where we both worked and lived for many months. And, I now have pay your costs incurred because I tried to argue with you near the Project.
Acceptance and Intervening Cause Avoided Construction Warranty Claim
Like cars, computers, and appliances, construction projects include warranties too. Similarly, construction project warranties are limited to causes within the contractor’s control […]
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.”
