Virtually every construction contract includes a provision stating that changed or extra work must be authorized in writing by the other party. And on virtually every construction project, oral directives are issued and the scope of work is modified without the benefit of a written authorization or contract amendment.

This was the situation in a recent California case. The scope of a mechanical engineer’s design services expanded greatly, yet there was no written authorization from the project architect. The court ruled that the engineer was entitled to compensation nonetheless. “To hold otherwise would compel a contractor to walk off the job in the face of what it believes to be major changes in the scope of work required of it … or alternatively forfeit any right to seek compensation for that work, regardless of the extent of the additional burdens imposed.”

Other cases this week involved a default termination at 95 percent completion and a subcontractor’s use of its unlicensed status as a defense to a breach of contract suit. The default was upheld because the contractor had been paid in full for its completed work but failed to perform the remaining five percent. And, the subcontract was enforceable against the sub and its surety regardless of the prime contractor’s knowledge of the sub’s unlicensed status.