|
Volume 5 - Number 31 | August 6, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
The federal Prompt Payment rule requires government agencies to issue timely payment for work or risk paying interest, currently at the rate of 5.75 percent. State prompt payment acts, which also govern private ventures, have similar requirements, with interest rates as high as 18 percent annually. When a private homeowner decided to withhold a progress payment from its contractor for allegedly defective work, a state appeals court ruled that the homeowner violated the state’s Prompt Payment Act.
The vast majority of contracts operate under a schedule. When a contractor failed to perform even a small fraction of its work after 40 percent of the time had expired and did not make efforts to accelerate the work, the ASBCA concluded that the contracting officer was justified in terminating the contract.
Contract language assigning safety liability to the contractor does not always provide a guarantee that the contractor will be held liable. In one case, the contractor is exempt from liability for an accident involving one of its subcontractors because it did not contribute to the accident.
This week’s final case, while not specific to construction, is instructive to the industry. The U.S. Supreme Court has clarified the requirements necessary to file a complaint in federal court. The plaintiff must be able to provide some element of proof when making allegations. A suit cannot be filed in an attempt to find or establish facts.
|
 |
PLAINTIFFS MUST HAVE FACTUAL BASIS FOR CLAIM TO SEEK RELIEF
By Daniel P. Wierzba
The U.S. Supreme Court retires its 50-year-old standard for dismissing federal complaints. Complaints in federal court cannot be used as fact-finding missions—the plaintiff must provide enough substantiated evidence to justify the suit.
|
|
