Many subcontracts contain a catch-all provision requiring the subcontractor to do everything the prime contractor is obligated to do under the prime contract. This is known as an “incorporation” clause because it adopts or incorporates legal rights and duties spelled out elsewhere. Here is an example of an incorporation clause: “The Subcontractor shall be
Another week, another fee-shifting case. This ones involves a 28-unit condo project in the Houston Heights neighborhood of Houston (see 2017 Yale Development, LLC v. Steadfast Funding, LLC, 2023 WL 3184028 (Tex. App. May 2, 2023)). The project failed after the developer defaulted on its loans and several contractors filed liens on the property.
Last week we saw the Menard court reject the use of an indemnity clause to shift fees in a dispute between contracting parties. This week, a very recent decision from Nevada highlights another creative way to shift fees where there is no statute or contract provision on point: offers of judgment (see Helix Electric of
The “American Rule” on attorneys’ fees is that each party pays its own lawyers, even if you win. As with almost any rule, there are exceptions. Sometimes there is a statute that requires the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s fees. For example, many states have enacted Prompt Pay laws that include a fee-shifting provision
The construction industry is full of valuable business information including customer lists, pricing information, project budgets, and more. The value of such information may be lost if it becomes known to a competitor or the public at large. That is why it is important to take steps to protect confidential information from disclosure. Such steps
A recent case out of Washington serves as a good reminder to preserve evidence that may be relevant to pending or future litigation. That includes not only evidence in the form of documents and electronic information, but also physical evidence. In Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2023 WL 2856616 (Wash. Ct. App. April 10, 2023) the
Earlier this week we saw the court in Patriot Construction use the waiver doctrine to excuse a subcontractor’s failure to strictly comply with the documentation requirements of the contract. As a litigant in Illinois federal court found out last week, it doesn’t always work out that way. Boldt v. Black & Veatch involves the 60-turbine
Many contracts contain provisions requiring that changes to a contract be in writing and signed by a particular authorized person. Under such provisions, work done without proper written authorization will not be reimbursed. So, what happens when, in the rush to get the job done, work is done without prior written authorization?