Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

Originally posted 2015-03-17 10:06:56.

Virginia General Assembly
Virginia General Assembly (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I posted recently, the Virginia General Assembly has passed, and I can see no reason why the governor won’t sign, a bill that would essentially invalidate preemptive contractual waivers of lien rights as they relate to subcontractors and material suppliers.  It does not apply to General Contractors, but it is a step in what many (including those attorneys that represent subcontractors and suppliers) believe is the right direction.

Of course, as soon as I posted last week,  my friend and colleague Scott Wolfe (@scottwolfejr) commented on that post and then gave his two cents worth at his Zlien blog.  The gist of the comments here at Musings and the post over at his blog was essentially that these contractual provisions were inherently unfair and therefore should be abolished because of both a relative disparity in leverage between the Owner or GC and the Subcontractor when it comes to negotiations and the fact that subcontractors often don’t read their contracts or discuss them with a construction attorney prior to signing them.  I hear this first of his arguments often when I am reviewing a contract after the fact and a client or potential client acts surprised that a provision will be enforced and the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia will actually enforce them.  As to Scott’s second reason, I have always warned here at Musings that you should read your contracts carefully because they will be the law of your business relationship in the future.

Continue reading Do We Really Want Courts Deciding if Our Construction Contracts are Fair?

Interesting Perspectives on Construction Law from Friends

Originally posted 2013-10-23 09:15:47.

Contracts (Photo credit: NobMouse)

As I have been in a bit of the throes of writers block here at Musings (hey, it happens), I did what I always do and check the great sources of information in my blog roll and Feedly feeds for any fodder to discuss.

In doing so, I ran across two interesting posts, one from my pal Matt Bouchard (@mattbouchardesq) down in Raleigh, NC entitled “Mediator/Arbitrator Hybrids: The Next Big Thing in Construction Dispute Resolution.”  In this post (which I will not go into much detail about here) Matt discusses a contractual procedure where one person acts as a mediator and arbitrator in a procedure summarized (after a full outline of the contractual provisions) by Matt as follows:

There you have it: soup-to-nuts construction dispute resolution within 65 days, no muss, no fuss.  The procedure features one neutral, serving as both the mediator and the arbitrator, with virtually no time at all transpiring between the end of the mediation and final resolution of the arbitration.

Continue reading Interesting Perspectives on Construction Law from Friends

Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

I have discussed the need for attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my construction contract basics posts.

Why would you want such a provision?  The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision.  Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs.  In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise.  While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia.  Throw in the fact that Virginia courts strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method. Continue reading Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions

Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

Originally posted 2019-10-25 10:40:49.

If there is one “theme” to Construction Law Musings, those that read regularly hopefully see that I take my role as counselor to construction companies seriously.  Aside from the fact that litigation and arbitration are both expensive and not a great way for any business, particularly a construction business, to make money, I have found construction professionals to be a pragmatic group of people that would rather solve a problem than go to court. Continue reading Construction Law- Where Pragmatism and Law Collide

Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

Originally posted 2014-06-10 15:38:08.

Map of the United States District Courts in Virginia,(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have discussed how hard it is in the Commonwealth of Virginia to make out a claim for fraud when a construction contract is involved.  On limited exception is where a claim for “fraud in the inducement” is involved.  Essentially, such a claim states that one party was hoodwinked into entering the contract in the first place.  Because of the initial fraud (for instance misrepresenting the class or existence of a contractor’s license), the courts may bypass the terms of the contract and allow a claim for fraud to go forward.

Continue reading Even Fraud in the Inducement is Tough in Construction

Exit mobile version