Recent Court Decisions
LeClair v. Town of
Norwell,
430 Mass. 328 (1999)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Norwell violated the statute governing the selection of a designer for a public building project. The violation occurred when Norwell awarded the design contract without public advertisement to the same firm which conducted its project feasibility study. Despite the violation, the Court allowed performance of the design contract to continue on the grounds the Town did not act in bad faith, and stopping performance would harm the public.
Suffolk Construction v.
Lanco,
47 Mass. App. Ct. 729 (1999)
The Appeals Court ruled a written subcontract became effective on the date the subcontract stated it was made, even though the subcontractor actually started work before that date and signed the subcontract after that date. As a result, the general contractor could not recover against the subcontractor under an indemnification provision for an injury to the subcontractor's employee which occurred before the "effective" subcontract date.
National Lumber v.
LeFrancois,
430 Mass. 663 (2000)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a property owner who acquired ownership after a contractor recorded a notice of contract, against the property, took title subject to the mechanic's lien created by the notice of contract. The Court also ruled that mechanic's lien was not void because the contractor did not name the new owner in its original complaint.
Annese Electrical v.
City of Newton,
431 Mass. 763 (2000)
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Newton had a right to reject all filed electrical sub-bids on a public project where three of five sub-bidders withdrew because of clerical errors, and Newton was dissatisfied with the remaining sub-bid prices. Under the public bid statute, an awarding authority may reject all filed sub-bids in a trade where there are less than three eligible sub-bidders, and the bid prices are not reasonable for acceptance without further competition.
This
newsletter is intended to provide general information of interest to the
construction industry. It is not intended to provide specific legal advice or
to address fact specific issues. For that you should consult your legal
counsel. Corwin & Corwin LLP assumes no liability in connection with the
use of this newsletter. The Supreme Judicial Court may consider this material
advertising.
©1992-2000 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved