Navigating a labyrinth of methods: determining equipment costs in construction contract disputes

Article Abstract:

The various methods for determining equipment costs in disputes related to construction contracts are both time-consuming and confusing. When using the total cost method, the bid is subtracted by the contractor from the total actual project costs, assuming that all increases in actual costs resulted from the issue in dispute. In the actual cost method, invoices of equipment rentals are usually sufficient. The final corrective method from jury verdict allows a contractor to prove actual costs to enable the jury to estimate the damage and make a decision.

Author: Kallo, Gasan G.
Contracts, Construction equipment

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Criticizing the contractor: a dangerous game

Article Abstract:

Architects and engineering firms must tread carefully when carrying out their responsibility to inspect project sites. Otherwise, they may be sued for defamation. An illustration is the case filed by Quality Granite Construction Co. Inc. against Hurst-Rosche Engineers Inc. (HRE) after the latter criticized the contractor's performance in a letter to its surety, Transamerica Premier Insurance Co. HRE was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages because the letter retracted its earlier certification that the contractor had completed the project.

Author: Zetlin, Michael S.
Libel and slander, Engineering services, Engineering firms, Quality Granite Construction Co. Inc., Hurst-Rosche Engineers Inc.

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Differing site conditions: industry consensus opposes ruling

Article Abstract:

Organizations belonging to the construction industry met to discuss the effect of the reversal of a lower court decision by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding differing site conditions clauses in a contract between Millgard Corp. and McKee/Mays on a drilled-shaft-foundation construction project. The higher court disregarded the changed conditions clause (CCC) and placed more importance on the disclaimers. The construction industry decided to support the need for CCCs alleging that CCCs are advantageous for both contractor and owner.

Author: Litke, S. Scot
Millgard Corp., McKee/Mays

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Construction industry, Cases, Contractors
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.