|
Volume 5 - Number 17 | April 23, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Construction disputes frequently involve technical issues and competing expert opinions on those issues. But expert opinion is not appropriate in all situations. This was illustrated when the Court of Federal Claims excluded the testimony of Professor Ralph C. Nash, one of the foremost experts in government contract law in the country. The case did not involve a construction contract, but it certainly is instructive regarding the role of expert opinion in contract disputes.
Another case featured this week involves the widely used AIA contract document forms. The base agreement itself has signature lines for the two parties. But the general conditions form contains no signature lines. Could a project owner avoid a term of the general conditions by arguing that it never saw or signed that form? A Tennessee court was called upon to answer that question.
Negotiations between the low bidder on a prime contract and a prospective trade subcontractor sometimes become protracted, with differing offers and counter-offers flying back and forth. At what point is there a “meeting of the minds” and a binding contract? A federal appeals court said there can never be an agreement when material terms of the transaction remain unresolved.
This week we have added a new feature to the constructionclaims.com website. Called the Construction Claims Reference Library, it comprises of two index listings of all the back issues of the Advisor in a format that many will find useful when looking for specific information. See the following article for details.
|
|
EXPERT LEGAL TESTIMONY EXLCUDED FROM TRIAL
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has excluded expert testimony on the grounds it constituted legal argument. While the opinion came from one of the foremost government contract experts in the country, it did not involve specialized knowledge of factual matters.
|
|
GENERAL CONDITIONS DID NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE SIGNATURE OR ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A Tennessee court has ruled that the AIA general conditions had been effectively incorporated into the AIA contract and the project owner was subject to binding arbitration. The owner complained it had never seen or signed the general conditions and was unaware of the arbitration provision.
|
|
UNRESOLVED “MINOR DETAILS” PREVENTED CREATION OF BINDING SUBCONTRACT
A federal appeals court has ruled that protracted negotiations between a prime contractor and a prospective subcontractor did not lead to a binding agreement. Unresolved issues were more than “minor details” and the parties had not intended to proceed without a final written contract.
|
|
