Comments on: Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes

By: Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update

Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:03:31 +0000

[...] here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers [...]

By: Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update | Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:05:16 +0000

[...] here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers [...]

By: Reminder: Pay if Paid Not All Encompassing (but Could it be? | Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA)

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 21:06:55 +0000

[...] On numerous occasions, I have discussed the need to be careful with so called “pay if paid” clauses in construction contracts. While such clauses are enforceable in Virginia (when phrased correctly), there are exceptions and limitations (for instance in the Miller Act context). [...]

By: JW_Surety_Bonds (JW Surety Bonds)

JW_Surety_Bonds (JW Surety Bonds) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 20:04:59 +0000

Twitter Comment

RT @constructionlaw Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: hpandpsafety (HP&P Safety, Inc.)

hpandpsafety (HP&P Safety, Inc.) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:02:45 +0000

Twitter Comment

Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: Christopher G. Hill

Christopher G. Hill — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 00:46:37 +0000

Thanks Scott

By: scottwolfejr (Scott Wolfe Jr)

scottwolfejr (Scott Wolfe Jr) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:04:55 +0000

Twitter Comment

RT @constructionlaw: New Musings: Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: Scott Wolfe

Scott Wolfe — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:27:10 +0000

Interesting case. While this really accentuates the importance of getting counsel to help on a dispute, it also makes me think that sometimes that’s not enough, and sometimes you’re just on the wrong side of the law.

Cool case, and good review.
.-= Scott Wolfe´s last blog post ..CPSC Stiff Recommendations Positive Development for Homeowner Claims =-.

By: Christopher G. Hill

Christopher G. Hill — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:31:01 +0000

Thanks for the comment Tim! I think you’re right. The pay whn paid only made the walk off by the sub “cause” for the GC’s actions. Walking for non-payment only works if you are entitled to payment as a sub.

By: Timothy R. Hughes

Timothy R. Hughes — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:43:56 +0000

Thanks for sharing, this is an interesting case. The fact that it takes 13 pages to get a reference to the Moore Brothers case says this is less about "pay when/if paid" and more about the risk of walking off the job. In the end, this is yet another case standing for the proposition that a sub walking off the job, even for good reason, had better be sure they are right (and even then, they usually are not). .-= Timothy R. Hughes´s last blog post ..Do You Really Want A Construction Case?? =-.