|
Volume 5 - Number 37 | September 17, 2007
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Gone are the days of merely hanging a “for let” sign from an office window to announce a vacancy. Now, building owners use elaborate and creative methods to entice would-be tenants. One such owner used design plans from an architectural firm to woo potential occupants for the office/residential space in Greenwich, Conn. When the owner withheld payment for some of the services rendered, the architect relied on the state’s mechanic’s lien statute to recover the costs; a move that an appellate court said was permissible and within the protection of the statute.
Also this week, we cover the recovery actions of a surety that sued the government in behalf of a subcontractor, a state court that set start and finish dates ex post facto for an owner who failed to specify them in his contract, and a contractor that failed to follow protocol for filing a claim.
|
|
COURT CALLED UPON TO DETERMINE DATES OF PERFORMANCE PERIOD
When a podiatrist doesn’t set an official start date for construction of his new office, a state court must step in to do it. The court also determines the completion date and in so doing, sidesteps the original claim for liquidated damages.
|
|
