Triple Points to the English Court of Appeal for Clarifying the Law on LDs
July 01, 2019 —
Vincent C. Zabielski & Julia Kalinina Belcher - Gravel2GavelCan an employer recover liquidated damages (LDs) from a contractor if the contract terminates before the contractor completes the work?
Surprisingly, heretofore, English law provided no clear answer to this seemingly straightforward question, and inconsistent case law over the past century has left a trail of confusion. Given the widespread use of English law in international construction contracts, this uncertainty had gone on far too long.
The good news is that drafters of construction contracts throughout the world can now have a well-deserved good night’s sleep courtesy of the English Court of Appeal’s March 2019 decision in Triple Point Technology, Inc. v PTT Public Company Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 230.
The Triple Point case concerned the delayed supply by Triple Point (the “Contractor”) of a new software system to employer PTT. The contract provided for payments upon achievement of milestones, however order forms incorporated into the contract set out the calendar dates on which fixed amounts were payable by PTT, resulting in an apparently contradictory requirements on when payment was due. Triple Point achieved completion (149 days late) of a portion of the work milestones, and were paid for that work. Triple Point then sought payment for the work which was not yet completed, relying on the calendar dates in the order forms rather than achievement of milestone payments. Things got progressively worse as PTT refused payment, Triple Point suspended the work for PTT’s failure to pay, PTT terminated the contract and then appointed a new contractor to complete the work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vincent C. Zabielski, Pillsbury and
Julia Kalinina Belcher, Pillsbury
Mr. Zabielski may be contacted at vincent.zabielski@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Belcher may be contacted at julia.belcher@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93
January 17, 2023 —
Laurence Arnold - BloombergAlbert Reichmann, the longtime president of his family’s Olympia & York Developments Ltd., builder of the World Financial Center in New York and the first phase of Canary Wharf in London, has died. He was 93.
He died on Dec. 17, according to the National Post and a notice on the website of Steeles Memorial Chapel, a Toronto-area funeral home.
As the eldest of the three Orthodox Jewish brothers behind Olympia & York, Reichmann held the title of president. In practice, his brother Paul — who died in 2013 — was the company’s “idea man and deal-doer,” in the words of Anthony Bianco, a former Businessweek writer whose book on the family called Olympia & York “the greatest property development company in Western history.”
Before its 1992 bankruptcy, it was the largest private owner of commercial property in New York City.
Forbes magazine calculated the brothers’ cumulative net worth at $9.2 billion at its height in 1988, making them among the world’s richest people.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laurence Arnold, Bloomberg
Construction Litigation Roundup: “The Jury Is Still Out”
October 30, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - Lexology“The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury for a legal claim in a civil action.” So, isn’t the law, well, the law?
Well, perhaps.
Some axioms to remember in contracting are that parties are typically able to agree in a contract to anything that is lawful, and that all such lawful agreements essentially become the “law” between the parties. It is on these principles that courts issue jurisprudence which becomes binding on future litigants – for example, concerning waiver of any right to trial by jury.
Hence, when a second-tier subcontractor on a federal project sought a jury for a lawsuit it had against a general contractor’s sureties, the sub was successfully rebuffed by the sureties based upon a waiver to trial by jury contained in the relevant subcontract. The court noted various matters to be considered in connection with the generally enforceable jury waiver – including the conspicuousness of the waiver (and, therefore, whether the subcontractor “knowingly” agreed to the waiver), as well as the relative bargaining power of the parties to the agreement (here, the sub was self-proclaimed to be a “leader in the construction contracting field”) – and affirmed the legality of the waiver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022
November 01, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a selection of significant environmental and regulatory law cases decided by the federal courts after the Supreme Court’s 2021 Term concluded.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission
On July 12, 2022, the DC Circuit held that an order of the FCC requiring radio broadcasters to follow a prescribed five-step process to verify the identity of program sponsors was not authorized by the Communications Act. According to the court, the FCC “decreed a duty that the statute does not require, and that the statute does not empower the FCC to impose.” Here, the agency failed to identify the statutory authority it needed to authorize the issuance of such an order. While certainly not as significant as the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, decided only a few days before this decision was released, it is a strong reminder that the courts want to know if a challenged rule is authorized by law.
Humane Society of the U.S., et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
On July 22, 2022, the court decided a case involving the steps the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act require to be taken before a final agency rule is legally promulgated. Customarily, when there has been a change in Presidential administrations, the incoming administration “quietly” withdraws rules awaiting Federal Register publication without much ceremony. The majority of this panel agreed that public notice should have been provided to the regulated community to comment on the new administration’s action to pull back a new rule which had been made available for public inspection before Federal Register publication that would have strengthened the protections afforded “show horses,” as now required by law. The court noted that “it seems clear that filing with the Federal Register constituted promulgation of a regulation even though publication may not occur until a later date.” Circuit Judge Rao filed a strong dissent. “By cutting off agency discretion at public inspection, the majority imposes judicial burden on agency procedures that conflicts with circuit precedent, the statutory framework and a longstanding regulation permitting withdrawals prior to publication.” There could be a further review of this unique ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Couple Claims ADA Renovation Lead to Construction Defects
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA couple in Mercer County, West Virginia have claimed that the renovations done to their home not only failed to meet the requested ADA standards, but lead to construction defects, as reported by The West Virginia Record. Ray and Sherry Price are suing Lamberts Construction Company of Bluefield, West Virginia, claiming breach of contract and infliction of emotional distress. The couple hired to company to construct a bathroom addition, a bedroom addition, and a new driveway. In addition to other damages, they are also seeking the cost to repair the renovations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Let the 90-Day Countdown Begin
February 11, 2019 —
Amy L. Pierce & Robert A. James - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogMost contractors are diligent about making sure that they pay their licensing fees, renew worker’s compensation insurance, and maintain the required bonds. What may be less obvious is how critically important it is to have current company personnel listed on the company’s licensing records with the Contractor’s State Licensing Board. Only personnel listed on the CSLB’s records are authorized to act on behalf of the licensee with respect to CSLB-related matters.
Although this may sound simple enough, all such personnel will be required to comply with fingerprinting (and background check) requirements before their applications to be added to the company’s licensing records can be approved. No new personnel will be associated with the licensee until their application is determined to be acceptable and all other requirements are met. Unforeseeable processing delays could result in this new personnel being unable to timely act on behalf of the licensee.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and
Robert A. James, Pillsbury
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners
August 10, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003.
The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care).
The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Connecticut Supreme Court Further Refines Meaning of "Collapse"
January 13, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiConnecticut courts have been inundated with collapse cases the past couple of years due to insureds' living in homes that were constructed with defective concrete manufactured by J.J. Mottes Concrete Company. In a duo of cases, the Connecticut Supreme Court responded to a certified question from the U.S. District Court, holding that collapse required that the building be in imminent danger of falling down. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2019 Conn. LEXIS 339 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019).
Plaintiffs had resided in their home since 2009. The home was built in 1993. In August 2015, after learning about the problem of crumbling basement walls affecting homes in their community due to cement manufactured by Mottes, they retained a structural engineer to evaluate their basement walls. The engineer found spider web cracking approximately 1/16 of an inch wide in the basement walls and three small vertical cracks. There were no visible signs of bowing. The engineer did not find that the walls were in imminent danger of falling down, but recommended that the basement walls be replaced.
Plaintiffs submitted a claim under their homeowners policy to Liberty Mutual. The claim was denied. The policy did not define collapse, but stated that collapse did not include "settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
