Volume 6 - Number 19 | May 12, 2008 - Construction Claims Advisor

Sample Issue

Bookstore

Editorial Board

Construction Law Sites

Past Issues

Press Releases

Forums

You are here: Home » Volume 6 - Number 19 | May 12, 2008

Volume 6 - Number 19 | May 12, 2008

EDITOR'S NOTES | Issue 6-19: If construction is as old as time, so, too, are construction claims. Under the simplest layman’s terms, an owner contracts a builder—be it by handshake, written document or other agreement—to construct the project to certain specifications, and then compensates the contractor accordingly. The contractor, in turn, builds the specified project. If the project does not proceed as desired, for whatever reason, and the parties cannot resolve the issue, one or more parties may have cause to file a complaint, or claim, against the other party. Many times, the dispute comes down to the original agreement. Was the contract ambiguous? In some cases, yes. Did the contract permit leniency (even if unintentional) in the specifications? Perhaps. These and other related questions are at the heart of the case summaries presented this week.

When disputes do arise between parties, what’s the best course of action? Guest columnist Farid Saddik suggests taking a day (or even a week) to look at the problem from every direction and then meeting with the opposing party’s top decision-makers to hammer out a solution before the problem escalates to litigation.

NEW YORK COURT SORTS OUT AMBIGUOUS UNIT-PRICED LINE ITEMS: A contractor’s profits go down the drain on a sewer project because of a contract ambiguity on unit-priced line items.

LIEN CLAIM DID NOT HAVE TO LIMIT PROPERTY ACREAGE: A party filing a mechanic’s lien does not need to specify property boundaries on the lien for it to be valid, especially if the owner does not designate boundaries in pre-construction documents with the county circuit court.

OCCASIONAL DEVIATIONS FROM SPECIFICATIONS DID NOT ESTABLISH BREACH OF WARRANTY: A roadway contract between a municipality and a contractor allows for isolated disparities between specifications and job performance, thus negating the city’s ability to bring a breach of warranty claim against the contractor for early failure of the road.