Marshall Contractors, Inc. v. Brown University SCI, Inc ... AWS
Chapter Five
Marshall Contractors, Inc. v. Brown University
Court ruling: A lower court had ruled in favor of Brown University, but the Supreme Court of Rhode Island on appeal from Marshall reversed the lower court’s ruling on the basis that there had been no credible evidence throughout the Contract period that the exact scope had been determined, and therefore an exact price was not possible. The Supreme Court sustained Marshall’s appeal and remanded the case back to the Superior Court. Note: Although a Supreme Court might reverse a lower court, the case is often not immediately settled. In this case, although Marshall was entitled to additional compensation, it is possible that some settlement on the exact amount of compensation might still need to be resolved. Thus, again, prevailing in court is not always “winning.”
Try one more You Be the Judge
SCI, Inc. v. Engineered Concepts, Inc.
SCI, Inc. (SCI) was hired on a $4 million Subcontract to perform sitework for Engineered Concepts, Inc. (Concepts) on an apartment complex in Mississippi. SCI finished the work and requested an additional $300,000 for extra work performed. Concepts did not dispute the extra was indeed above the original Contract scope and did not dispute the amount. SCI, however, was denied payment for failure to provide proper documentation and waivers of claims in accordance with the requirements of the Contract regarding payment applications. How do you rule—in favor of Concepts or SCI, and if SCI, how much?
Court ruling: The court ruled in favor of Concepts, disallowing SCI’s claim. The court decision backed Concepts’ claim that the requirements of the Contract for payment are as binding as all other requirements of the Contract.
Note: This may seem harsh in terms of what the Subcontractor was entitled to based on the work performed. However, documentation that is submitted with invoices is sometimes quite important to the Owner. Some documentation carries warranty assurances, and other documentation often waives the right to later sue the Owner once payment has been made. Attempting to circumvent Contract conditions is almost always pointless. Unless some form of estoppel evidence can demonstrate a condition has been repeatedly ignored, the Contract Administrator should comply with the conditions and in return expect and monitor prompt payment for the work that has been done and documented. Additional work above the Contract terms and conditions should also be documented and a change order processed as soon as possible.
Marshall Contractors, Inc. v. Brown University
Court ruling: A lower court had ruled in favor of Brown University, but the Supreme Court of Rhode Island on appeal from Marshall reversed the lower court’s ruling on the basis that there had been no credible evidence throughout the Contract period that the exact scope had been determined, and therefore an exact price was not possible. The Supreme Court sustained Marshall’s appeal and remanded the case back to the Superior Court. Note: Although a Supreme Court might reverse a lower court, the case is often not immediately settled. In this case, although Marshall was entitled to additional compensation, it is possible that some settlement on the exact amount of compensation might still need to be resolved. Thus, again, prevailing in court is not always “winning.”
Try one more You Be the Judge
SCI, Inc. v. Engineered Concepts, Inc.
SCI, Inc. (SCI) was hired on a $4 million Subcontract to perform sitework for Engineered Concepts, Inc. (Concepts) on an apartment complex in Mississippi. SCI finished the work and requested an additional $300,000 for extra work performed. Concepts did not dispute the extra was indeed above the original Contract scope and did not dispute the amount. SCI, however, was denied payment for failure to provide proper documentation and waivers of claims in accordance with the requirements of the Contract regarding payment applications. How do you rule—in favor of Concepts or SCI, and if SCI, how much?
Court ruling: The court ruled in favor of Concepts, disallowing SCI’s claim. The court decision backed Concepts’ claim that the requirements of the Contract for payment are as binding as all other requirements of the Contract.
Note: This may seem harsh in terms of what the Subcontractor was entitled to based on the work performed. However, documentation that is submitted with invoices is sometimes quite important to the Owner. Some documentation carries warranty assurances, and other documentation often waives the right to later sue the Owner once payment has been made. Attempting to circumvent Contract conditions is almost always pointless. Unless some form of estoppel evidence can demonstrate a condition has been repeatedly ignored, the Contract Administrator should comply with the conditions and in return expect and monitor prompt payment for the work that has been done and documented. Additional work above the Contract terms and conditions should also be documented and a change order processed as soon as possible.
