Remember the one about differing site conditions? (just kidding, that was never a joke). However, any site contractor knows that these differing conditions can be the bane of its existence. Recently, the Danville, Virginia Division of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia weighed in on the differing site conditions debate. In
As has been said a “few” times here at Construction Law Musings, the courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia strictly interpret the actual terms of a construction contract. A recent case in the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond provides yet another example of this fact. In Fixture Specialists Inc. v. MGT Construction Mgmt.
Last week we discussed the groundwork and circumstances of a construction claim. This week’s post will discuss the next steps, hopefully, short of full-blown arbitration or litigation that you, as a construction company, can pursue presuming your claim has been properly preserved. If your contract requires certain steps such as informal resolution attempts or other
I have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract
After I wrote the title to this post, I thought, “Well, that says it all, doesn’t it?” I also considered the fact that for those that read this construction law blog on a regular basis, I am likely stating the obvious. I then thought about the fact that there can be confusion regarding the purpose