Volume 6 - Number 43 | November 3, 2008
Recent Issues
EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 6-43
This week, we look at equipment on the jobsite. In one case, the contractor’s rented equipment sat idle. In the other, the contractor’s owned equipment got a heavy workout. In both cases, the contractors disputed the compensated amount for the equipment usage. And in both cases, the contractors were not happy with the courts’ rulings.
In this week’s third case, the problem wasn’t about equipment billing but rather, getting the required equipment to work. The project called for a specific product or its “equal.” The contractor adhered to the letter of the contract and gave up when it couldn’t get the product, a software system, to perform properly. According to the court, however, the project performance was more important than the product used to ensure performance success.
In the AIA’s newest set of contract documents, alternative dispute resolution methods have taken on a more prominent role. The AIA isn’t the only one taking note -- ADR methods are gaining popularity in state and federal courts, too. WPL Publishing recently presented a webinar on how to select and pursue a successful ADR strategy. Get a brief look at what three construction law experts had to say about ADR and mediation in the construction industry.
If your work requires familiarity with construction scheduling, you won’t want to miss WPL Publishing’s upcoming four-part webinar series on scheduling best practices, lessons learned, avoidable traps and legal concerns. The first session will be held Nov. 12. For more information, visit
www.projectcontrols.com
.
COST OF IDLED UNMANNED EQUIPMENT WAS NOT LIENABLE
If rented equipment sits idle and unmanned on a stalled project, the contractor cannot necessarily recover those lost costs through a mechanic's lien.
EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP COULD NOT BE DUPLICATED IN FIELD OVERHEAD
The ASBCA instructs a contractor that it cannot double bill for use of its equipment. If usage of the equipment, which it owns, is billed at one rate, it cannot also charge for its use as a field overhead expense.
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS NOT NEGATED BY SPECIFIED PRODUCT “OR EQUAL”
When a contractor can’t work out the bugs on a Y2K-related project, a federal appeals court is called in to determine which is more important – using a contract-specified product or overall project performance.
more articles >>
