Image via Wikipedia Musings thought that it would step away from its discussion of “green” construction to discuss a few interesting construction cases that came down recently in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The first of these is another warning to contractors that arbitration provisions can be waived by conduct. In Shoosmith Bros., Inc. v. Hopewell
I have preached the mantra of “read your contracts carefully” on numerous occasions here at Construction Law Musings. I have also discussed my thoughts on ADR and mandatory mediation. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia mixes these two ideas quite nicely. Dominion Transmission Inc. v. Precision Pipeline Inc. involved the construction
We discuss contracts often here at Construction Law Musings. Why? Because in most states, and particularly in my home state of Virginia, the contract creates the “law” that will govern your interaction on a construction project. In construction, every word of the contract will be read carefully in the event of a dispute. You need
Here at Construction Law Musings, I have often discussed payment bond claims under the federal Miller Act and its state specific analogs (so called “Little Miller Acts“). Most of these discussions have assumed without actually stating that the surety carrying the payment bond would be solvent and available to pay any judgment against it. Unfortunately,
Several posts out here in the legal blogosphere have discussed alternative dispute resolution (ADR). One good post out there relating to arbitration is by my friend Matt Devries (@matthewdevries) at his great blog Best Practices Construction Law. In his post, Matt sets forth the case for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism in the right