Class 6 outlines

Construction contract rights and duties

• Contract documents in an electronic age
  • Bidding documents: only if specifically in agreement
  • Basic agreement: AIA A101 and others
    • Incorporation by reference
  • Drawings
  • Specifications
    • Fruin-Colnon v. Niagara Frontier (415)
      585 N.Y.S.2d 248 (1992)
    • Blake v. U.S. (416)
      987 F.2d 743 (1993)
  • Conditions
    • General
      • AIA A201-2007 (Appendix C)
        

        “A201-2007 commentary” AIA (2007)

        “AIA’s new form A201-2007 general conditions” Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Nov 07)

        • Adventists v. Ferrellgas, 102 Wn. App. 488 (2000)
      • ConsensusDOCS: endorsers
        

        “FAQ: AIA contract documents and ConsensusDOCS” AIA (2008?)

        “A comparison of the new ConsensusDOCS and AIA construction forms” Seyfarth Shaw LLP (Mar 08)

        “ConsensusDOCS guidebook (200 commentary)” ConsensusDOCS (2 Apr 08)

        “General conditions: a comparison of ConsensusDOCS and the revised AIA documents” Faegre & Benson LLP (21 May 08)

        “Advantages of the ConsensusDOCS construction contracts” Construction Lawyer (Win 09)

    • Supplementary
  • Soil and test reports
  • Prior negotiations and parol evidence
  • Modifications: amendments, changes
    • Pre-existing duty
• Judicially-determined terms
  • Necessity to imply terms
    • Pacific v. Olsen (1913)
    • Janzen v. Phillips (1968)
    • Keever & Assocs. v. Randall (2005)
    • Reasonable duty to cooperate
  • Custom fills gaps
  • Compliance with codes: ¶¶ 3.2.3, 3.7.3
    • Public duty doctrine
      • State building code purpose: RCW 19.27.020 (L 74, 85)
      • Pierce v. Spokane County, 46 Wn. App. 171 (1986)
      • Moore v. Wayman (1997)
      • Williams v. Thurston County, 100 Wn. App. 330 (2000)
      • Condo Ass’n v. Apartment Sales, 146 Wn. 2d 194 (2002)
        

        “Mud makes ‘legal quagmire’ for displaced homeowners” The Seattle Times (24 Apr 98)

        “3 condos still mired in muck of ’97 slides” The Seattle Times (2 Feb 00)

        “Court: City could be liable in slide damage” The Seattle Times (5 Oct 00)

        “Supreme Court allows mudslide suit against Seattle” Puget Sound Business Journal (18 Apr 02)

        “Tilting-condos suit settled” The Seattle Times (11 Dec 03)

        “Townhomes, vacant since ’97, are demolished” Seattle Post-Intelligencer (17 Jan 04)

      • Smith v. Kelso, 112 Wn. App. 277 (2002)
      • SSB 5892 (2008): negligent enforcement liability [ report]
  • Good faith and fair dealing
  • Unconscionability
    • Torgerson v. One Lincoln Tower, 166 Wn. 2d 510 (2009)

Contract interpretation

• Objective: determine parties’ intentions
• Language interpretation
  • Plain meaning rule
    • TEG-Paradigm v. U.S. (431)
      465 F.3d 1329 (2006)
  • Context rule
    • Berg v. Hudesman (1990)
    • Diamond “B” v. Granite Falls SD, 117 Wn. App. 157 (2003)
  • Practical interpretation
    • Item not expressed in list is excluded
    • General term meaning is limited by specific examples
    • Reasonableness and fairness preferred
    • Ambiguity is interpreted against creator
      • Newsom v. U.S. (439)
        676 F.2d 647 (1982)
      • Mountain v. Tyee (1986)
• Resolving inconsistencies
  • Within written agreement
    • Specific clause over general
    • Operative clause over recital
    • Handwritten provision over typed over printed
  • Between documents
    • Unicon v. U.S. (442)
      375 F.2d 804 (1967)
    • Hensel Phelps v. U.S. (445)
      886 F.2d 1296 (1989)
    • Brown v. Poston (1954)
• Reformation: difficult remedy for mutual mistake

Changes

• Changes clause: Article 7
  • Watson v. Guennewig (451)
    226 N.E.2d 270 (1967)
• Bargaining power: owner v. contractor
• Changes classified
  • Cardinal
  • Constructive
  • Deductive
  • Minor: ¶ 7.4.1
  • Tentative
• Change orders: mechanism essential
  • Limits on owner power?
  • Authority: ¶ 7.1.2
    • Misrepresentation
  • Duty to contractor?
  • Formalities: CCD per ¶ 7.3
    • Claim notice: ¶¶ 15.1.4, 15.1.5.1
    • Waiver
      • Bignold v. King County (1965)
      • CKP v. GRS, 63 Wn. App. 601 (1991)
      • Absher v. Kent S.D. (1995)
      • Johnson v. Spokane County (2002) reversed
        • Johnson v. Spokane County (2003)
          

          “Claims case concern for contractors” Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce (31 Oct 03)

          “Johnson verdict brings changes to building industry” Puget Sound Business Journal (11 June 04)

      • Weber v. Spokane County, 124 Wn. App. 29 (2004)
      • SB 5936 (2005): battle over prejudice [ report]
      • ESHB 1765 (2007): too much “choreography” [ report]
      • Am. Safety Cas. Ins. v. City of Olympia (2007)
  • Pricing: ¶¶ 7.3.3, 7.3.7
    • Modern Builders v. Manke, 27 Wn. App. 86 (1980)
    • Hensel Phelps v. King County (1990)
    • Auburn v. Lydig, 89 Wn. App. 893 (1998)
• Effect on performance bond?