Skip to content

Menu

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

No Written Notice of Delay? Big Problem! Court Sides with Contractor in Termination Dispute

By John Mark Goodman on April 6, 2023
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
No Written Notice of Delay? Big Problem! Court Sides with Contractor in Termination Dispute

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 Cardinal Point Wind Farm in Good Hope, Illinois.

Link to The Details The Details

Black & Veatch, the general contractor, hired Boldt to erect the turbines. Black & Veatch terminated Boldt for cause after it fell behind schedule right out of the gate. Boldt sued for wrongful termination claiming the delays were caused by the turbine manufacturer, among others, for delivering the turbines late. 

In the event of a delay by the turbine manufacturer, the contract required Boldt to provide two notices to obtain cost and/or schedule relief:

  1. An initial notice within five days of learning of the event and
  2. A second more-detail notice within 20 days of an actual, demonstrable delay. 

While Boldt provided the initial five-day notice, it failed to provide the second, more detailed 20-day notice.

Link to Failure to Comply with Written Notice Provision Failure to Comply with Written Notice Provision

The court found that Boldt’s failure to strictly comply with the notice provision precluded it from trying to shift blame for project delays and was fatal to Boldt’s wrongful termination claim. In contrast, the court found that Black and Veatch gave proper notice of default under the contract and fully complied with the contract’s termination-for-cause procedures. Black & Veatch’s breach-of-contract counterclaim against Boldt therefore survived summary judgment and is headed for trial.

Photo of John Mark Goodman John Mark Goodman

John Mark Goodman is a construction lawyer and litigator who has tried cases throughout the United States and abroad. He regularly represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and others involved with construction disputes, but he also handles a variety of non-construction disputes when called upon.

John Mark Goodman is a construction lawyer and litigator who has tried cases throughout the United States and abroad. He regularly represents contractors, subcontractors, owners, and others involved with construction disputes, but he also handles a variety of non-construction disputes when called upon. A degreed engineer, John Mark enjoys helping clients work through disputes that are often technical and complex.

Read more about John Mark GoodmanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Real Estate & Construction
  • Blog:
    BuildSmart
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 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