Recent Federal Court Decisions
U.S. Steel v.
M. DeMatteo Const. Co.,
315 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2002) (MA)
The Court confirmed that under Massachusetts law, a subcontractor who does not substantially complete his contract work cannot even recover the fair value of the work completed. Also, a provision in the contract allowing the general contractor to terminate for the subcontractor's breach and setting out payments that would be due the subcontractor in the event of such termination, did not alter the established law, but rather gave the general contractor the choice of electing the options under the contract or relying on the established law.
Sibcoimtrex, Inc. v. American Foods Group, Inc.,
241 F.Supp.2d 104 (D.Mass. 2003)
A provision requiring arbitration of claims included on the reverse side of a seller's invoice constituted a material change in the sales contract previously formed between the buyer and seller, and thus did not become a part of their contract. Therefore, even though the provision stated that it applied to all future sales, buyer could not be forced to arbitrate a later shipment dispute.
HIM Portland, LLC v. DeVito Builders, Inc.,
317 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2003) (ME)
Property owner could not force arbitration of a dispute with a contractor where the parties' contract required a request for mediation prior to arbitration, and neither party made such a request. Where parties to a contract make a request for mediation a condition precedent to arbitration, failure to satisfy that condition prevents the parties from compelling arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Engineered Maintenance Services, Inc. v. United States,
55 Fed. Cir. 637 (2003)
The Court of Federal Claims held that a contractor's failure to give formal notice of site conditions to the government deprived the government of the opportunity to investigate and therefore prevented the contractor from later asserting differing site conditions as an excuse for its default. Complaints about site conditions that the contractor submitted in periodic reports to the government were insufficient to satisfy the written notice requirement in the contract because the conditions complained of were anticipated and described in the contract and, therefore, would not prompt the government to visit the site to investigate.
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.
©1992-2004 Corwin & Corwin LLP. All rights reserved