Norfolk Electric Inc., et al. v. Fall River Housing Authority 417 Mass. 207 (1994). Massachusetts' highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, overturned a lower court order and ruled that Local Housing Authorities statewide must award contracts for the construction and renovation of public housing under the Massachusetts Competitive Bidding statute, even where all funds are provided by the federal government through HUD. Here, HUD's local office had directed the Fall River Housing Authority to ignore state bidding law, including the requirement to obtain filed sub bids,. The Court ruled that direction was improper, that federal funding did not make the Local Housing Authority an agent of the federal government and that federal regulations contemplated compliance with State bidding laws. The Court declared Local Housing Authorities must comply with Mass. Gen. Laws 149, §§44 A-H in awarding contracts for construction and renovation of public housing with or without federal funding.
East Coast Steel v. Ciolfi, 417 Mass. 602 (1994) The Supreme Judicial Court reversed a lower court judgment invalidating a subcontractor's mechanic's lien, and ruled the subcontractor could base its mechanic's lien on an estimated completion date where the subcontract has no definite date for completion. The Court ruled the subcontractor was entitled to estimate a completion date in its Notice of Contract and in any Notice of Extension, without obtaining the general contractor's assent to the estimated date. The subcontractor's right to estimate a completion date was held subject only to the Owner's right to object if the estimated date goes beyond the completion date in the general contract. Here the Owner had not objected to the original or extended completion dates estimated by the subcontractor, and the Supreme Judicial Court held the subcontractor's lien was valid and enforceable.
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.