Breach of contract – Construction Law Musings- Richmond, VA

Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

Originally posted 2022-01-03 09:00:05.

Claims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.

In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:

In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim. Continue reading Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide

Fraud, the VCPA and Construction Contracts

Originally posted 2014-11-10 09:36:15.

I’ve discussed the economic loss rule here at Musings on several occasions. The economic loss rule basically states that where one party assumes a duty based in contract or agreement, the Virginia courts will not allow a claim for breach of that duty to go forward as anything but a contract claim. This doctrine makes fraud claims nearly, though not absolutely, impossible to maintain in a construction context. In a majority of instances, fraud and construction contracts are very much like oil and water, leaving parties to fight it out over the terms of a particular contract despite actions by one party or the other that non-lawyers would clearly see as fraud.

However, a recent case decided by the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least some hope to those who are seemingly fooled into entering a contract that they would not other wise have entered into. In Philip Abi-Najm, et. al, v Concord Condominium, LLC, several condominium purchasers sued Concord under for breach of contract, breach of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) and for fraud in the inducement based upon flooring that Concord installed that was far from the quality stated in the purchase contract. Based upon these facts, the Court looked at two questions: 1. Did a statement in the contract between Concord and the condo buyers create a situation in which the merger doctrine barred the breach of contract claim, and 2. Did the economic loss rule bar the VCPA and fraud claims?

After analyzing the merger claim and determining that the merger doctrine did not bar the breach of contract claim, the Court moved on to its analysis of the VCPA and fraud in the inducement claims. In both instances, the Court determined that the causes of action would stand. It reasoned that the VCPA created an independent statutory requirement making it unlawful to misrepresent that goods are of a particular quality. Because this duty arose independent of the contract, the claim was not barred by the economic loss rule.

Similarly, the fraud in the inducement claim was not barred because the plaintiffs alleged that Concord deliberately misrepresented the quality of the flooring knowing that it would likely cost Concord the sales if it disclosed the actual quality of the floors. In short, the fraud, as alleged, was independent of the contract because it was conceived to bring buyers in despite Concord’s having no intention to follow through on the quality of the floors.

The lesson here is that pleading matters and that not all is lost for a consumer or home buyer that thinks that he or she is subject to fraud. However, the devil is in the details and in the details put into the pleadings. Without pleading some independent duty outside of the contract, any fraud or other non-contract claim will fail. The advice of an experienced Virginia construction attorney will help you parse through the facts and properly package them for presentation to the Court.

As always, I welcome and encourage your comments below, please share your thoughts. Also, please subscribe to keep up with the latest Construction Law Musings.

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

Originally posted 2022-01-28 12:15:02.

In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents.

In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. Continue reading Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

Originally posted 2014-07-09 09:44:01.

The seals of the Commonwealth of Virginia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the course of my construction law practice, I have the pleasure of speaking with and talking to contractors and subcontractors that are based in Virginia and also based in other states. With the more nationalized construction landscape due to the constricted construction economy, I have more and more interaction with the latter category.

When I get a call from an out of state contractor (often when that construction company has an issue), one of my first questions is always whether that contractor has obtained its contractors license here in Virginia. In most cases, the answer is “Yes” and we can move on. However, in some instances, the answer is no and we have to discuss the potential consequences.

Continue reading Reminder: Know Your Contractor Licensing Rules

Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?

Originally posted 2014-11-27 10:00:21.

We have discussed the interaction of fraud and breach of contract actions on occasion here at Construction Law Musings. In most cases the two do not mix. Between the economic loss rule and the general desire of Virginia courts to keep contract actions and tort actions separate, most of the time it is impossible to make a fraud action relating to a contract stick in a construction context.

The Virginia Supreme Court recently confirmed this fraud/contract distinction. As discussed in the Virginia Real Estate Land Use & Construction Law blog (Thanks Heidi!), Station No. 2, LLC v. Lynch, et. al. strongly re-states the Virginia courts’ strong reluctance to allow a breach of contract turn into a claim for fraud. Without re-iterating the great discussion of the facts of the case found in the post by Heidi Meizner, suffice it to say that certain contractual promises between and among the parties were not fulfilled much to Station 2, LLC’s detriment.

However, in its pleadings, Station 2, LLC did not plead that any of the defendants meant to break their promises at the time that they were made. In fact, the pleadings stated that any determination to breach the promises was made among the defendants and after the original contract. In short, all of the facts plead in relation to the fraud claim flowed from the original (and now unfulfilled) contract. Therefore, no fraud in the inducement claim can follow.

The take away from this case is that, despite the seeming unfairness, fraud in the inducement is a difficult claim to plead and prove in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Only certain circumstances will allow even the most evil sounding facts relating to a construction contract rise to a claim for fraud. Contractors, subcontractors and business owners should thoroughly discuss the facts and circumstances of their potential fraud claims with a knowledgeable construction attorney to determine the best course of action in enforcing rights in circumstances where a seeming fraud induced them into a contract that was later unfulfilled.

As always, I welcome your comments below. Please subscribe to keep up with this and other Construction Law Musings.