Originally posted 2012-07-02 09:00:23.
I have discussed the importance of every word in a construction contract on multiple occasions at Construction Law Musings. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently gave another reminder that one area that can act as a sword or shield in a contract is the language regarding provision of notice.
Continue reading Proper Notice Can “Accelerate” Your Recovery
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.
Originally posted 2013-05-27 09:00:37.
Here at Construction Law Musings, we’ve discussed the fact that, in Virginia, the “economic loss rule” generally renders claims of fraud and construction contracts like oil and water. This is true in most states, including Florida.
What this means is that as a general rule where any party is supposed to perform under a contract, and fails to do so, the Virginia courts will dismiss a fraud claim out of a desire to avoid turning any breach of contract (read “broken promise”) case into a claim for fraud. As you have likely gathered by the title of this post, there are exceptions. One is a properly plead Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”) claim.
Continue reading Another Exception to Fraud and Contract Don’t Mix
Originally posted 2012-11-12 09:00:03.
Musings has discussed mechanic’s liens on numerous occasions.
As we discussed in earlier posts, the general rule is that a mechanic’s lien jumps to the head of the line of liens when filed. This is true in most instances. In the typical case, a contractor puts up a building and, when the owner refuses payment, it files a mechanic’s lien that takes priority over all other liens on that property, including the construction loan deed of trust (or mortgage, depending on your state’s property laws).
However, in Virginia, an exception exists. The Virginia Code provides that in a case where there is a loan on the land with a deed of trust, and then a construction loan with its own security in the land, the first lien holder can enforce its lien up to the value of the original and unimproved land on which it placed its lien. The mechanic’s lien holder takes priority on any value added to the property based on any improvements (i. e. the building itself) over any other liens.
When the construction loan is secured by the same deed of trust as the purchase loan, the mechanic’s lien takes precedence. Of course, these are the general rules. Your particular situation must be examined carefully by an attorney or other professional experienced in mechanic’s liens to determine the priority of your lien.
As always, please comment below and/or subscribe to receive updates on this and other topics here at Musings.
Originally posted 2015-01-12 09:00:08.
Previously 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 Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.)
In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract.
Several months later, no modification or change order had been issued, and Aarow submitted an invoice to Syska for the completed pond work. Syska instructed Aarow to list the pond work under a line item designated for certain finishing work on the project that had not yet been completed. The government denied the subsequent change order request (submitted by Syska), stating that the pond work was in the scope of the original contract and Syska withheld money owed for other aspects of the work to make up the difference for the previously billed pond work.
