Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Cause vs. Convenience: New Court of Appeals Decision Suggests That Choice in Termination of Subcontract May Limit Ability to Recover for Defective Work

By Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP & Gary Christensen on August 8, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

A general contractor cannot offset the cost of defective work performed by a subcontractor if the subcontractor sues to recover unpaid fees after being terminated for convenience. According to a new Oregon case, termination for convenience denies the subcontractor an opportunity to cure any defects before it has completed its work and therefore cuts off the general contractor’s claim for defective performance. 

In Shelter Products, Inc. v. Steelwood Construction, Inc., decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals on July 3, 2013, Catamount Constructors, Inc., had subcontracted with Steelwood Construction to provide and install structural steel and the roofing system on a new building. The parties’ subcontract allowed Catamount to terminate the subcontract for convenience and “without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy.” Midway through the project, Catamount exercised that provision. Catamount hired another subcontractor to complete the work, at which time it identified defects in the work that Steelwood had performed before termination. Catamount never gave Steelwood the opportunity to fix its work. Because Catamount had terminated for convenience and provided no opportunity to cure, the court of appeals found that it could not recover the repair costs. The court stated that “at least in the absence of an opportunity to correct allegedly defective work . . . where a party has terminated a contract for convenience, that party may not then counterclaim for the cost of curing any alleged default.”

Taking the analysis one step further, the court looked past the contract’s provisions and concluded that as a matter of law, when a construction contract is terminated for convenience and there is no opportunity for the subcontractor to cure, the general contractor cannot also pursue a claim against the subcontractor as though it had been terminated for cause. This was a matter of first impression in Oregon.

Photo of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
Email
  • Posted in:
    Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    From the Ground Up
  • Organization:
    Miller Nash Graham & Dunn LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo