Skip to main content

Blog

Constructlaw®

By Troutman Pepper Locke Visit the blog

624 published works

  1. Constructlaw®

    District Court in South Carolina Holds Subcontractor for Underground Utility Work Not Entitled to Statutory Lien Applicable to Erection, Alteration or Repairs of Buildings; IRS Takes Priority

    By Constructlaw

    Bell South Communications, Inc. dba Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Dekalb Concrete Pro 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11443 (D.S.C. July 27, 1995) BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. ("Southern Bell") initiated…

  2. Constructlaw®

    District Court in Michigan Holds that Manufacturer of Water Treatment Equipment May Have Action Upon Implied Contract Against Owner’s Engineer for Costs of Redesign and Modification of Equipment to Make Treatment System Work

    By Constructlaw

    M.A. Mortenson Co. v. City of Grand Rapids, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11626 (W.D. Mich. July 27, 1995) For the construction of a water filtration system, the City of Grand…

  3. Constructlaw®

    Wisconsin Court of Appeals Holds that Filing of Mechanics Lien Claim Without Adequate Investigation as to Timeliness Can Subject Attorneys to Liability for Slander of Title

    By Constructlaw

    Tym v. Ludwig, 1995 Wisc. App. LEXIS 974 (Wisc. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 1995) Slander of Title - Lawyer who filed a mechanics' lien against a homeowner's property on behalf…

  4. Constructlaw®

    District Court in Illinois Holds that Warranties of AIA Doc. A201/CM Incorporated in Owner/Contractor Agreement Written on AIA Doc. A101/CM Even Though Agreement Did Not Expressly Incorporate A201/CM

    By Constructlaw

    Resurgence Properties., Inc. v. W.E. O'Neil Construction Co., et. al., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11633 (E.D. Ill. August 11, 1995) Incorporation by Reference - AIA standard form of agreement between…

  5. Constructlaw®

    Ohio Supreme Court Holds Contractor Entitled to Prejudgment Interest on Damages for Delay and Disruption; Liquidated/Unliquidated Damages Dichotomy Rejected

    By Constructlaw

    Royal Electric Construction Corp. v. Ohio State University, 73 Ohio St. 3d 110, 652 N.W.2d. 687, 1995 Ohio LEXIS 18905 (Ohio Sup. Ct. Aug. 15, 1995) Prejudgment Interest - Contractor…

  6. Constructlaw®

    Claims Court Reviews Standards for False Claims Act and Contracts Disputes Act Liability for Inaccurate Claims

    By Constructlaw

    Al Munford, Inc. v. United States, 1995 U.S. Claims LEXIS 163 (Cl. Ct. August 15, 1995) False Claims Act - Federal contractor violated the False Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. 3729…

  7. Constructlaw®

    Second Circuit Holds Corinno Civetta Exceptions to "No Damage for Delay" Clauses Inapplicable to UCC Exclusion of Consequential Damages

    By Constructlaw

    McNally Wellman Company v. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23312 (2d Cir. August 18, 1995) Exclusion of Consequential Damages - A no-damage-for-delay clause insulated…

  8. Constructlaw®

    Missouri Court of Appeals Holds that Numerous Small Claims Aggregated into a Single Large Claim Were Still Subject to Contract Provision for Arbitration of Small Claims

    By Constructlaw

    Fru-Con Constr. Co. v. Southwestern Redevelopment Corp. II, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1443 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 1995) Arbitration Claims Limit - The Contractor submitted a $20 million claim…

  9. Constructlaw®

    US Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit Holds Gross Discrepancy in Bid Price Not Sufficient to Relieve Vendor of Obligation to Subcontractor

    By Constructlaw

    Architectural Metal Systems, Inc. v. Consolidated Systems, Inc., 58 F.3d 1227 No 94-3898 (7th Cir. July 5, 1995) Offer and Acceptance - Under the Illinois U.C.C., a price quotation that…

  10. Constructlaw®

    District Court in New York Finds Evidence Sufficient to Support Waiver of Written Change Order Requirement and Bad Faith Exception to Enforceability of "No Damage for Delay" Clause in Subcontractor Miller Act Suit

    By Constructlaw

    United States of America, for the Use and Benefit of Evergreen Pipeline Construction Co., Inc. v. Me, No. 90 Civ. 5106, 890 F. Supp. 1213, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9385…