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.
Linking Obligations
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: . . .
Termination of Government Contracts for Convenience (T4C)
Imagine you’re a Government Contractor under a firm, fixed-price contract and you’ve done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, the Government has decided to unilaterally end its contract with you. Yes, the Government can do this...
Government Contractors: Build a Snowman in August
As a Government Contractor, when have you agreed to perform a certain way, but later realized that another way is better for everybody? When the Government agrees, expressly or impliedly, to the alternative performance, it waives a credit for the unperformed work.
Construction Dispute Settlement: Dealing with Details
Reap the benefits of settling a construction dispute by doing these things.
E-mail Signature Not Enough to Certify a Claim
Construction project professionals routinely send e-mails with “signatures,” which typically include the sender’s typewritten name, title, contact information, and/or company logo. But, this sort of e-mail “signature” is not enough to certify a claim to the Government.
Government Contractors: Ask for a “Sum Certain” in Your Claim
If your Claim includes an item for damages with an amount “TBD,” you could lose the entire Claim.
Contractors: Be Aware When Contracting with Virginia Public Agencies
Without a valid contract, a Virginia public entity has no duty to to pay for any of your work.
Constructive Acceleration
Contractors know that time is money. So, the point is clear when expressly told to “Speed Up! Go Faster!”
But, what do you […]
Construction Contracts & Whodunit
Imagine reading a crime novel and just when you think you figured out whodunit, a plot twist suggests a different culprit. In construction contracting, finding the right answer can be a difficult task when
