ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Construction Law Blogs -> Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Construction Law

: Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog

Even without contractually-required change order, contractor recovers additional HVAC costs against owner on summary judgment

By Womble Carlyle Construction Law Team

ADVERTISEMENTS
The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a summary judgment decision in favor of Inland Construction Company, a general commercial contractor, for additional HVAC costs on a job where no change order was issued or executed. The Court agreed with the trial judge, Hon. Howard E. Manning, Jr., that despite an e-mail from Inland?s project manager to the defendant/property owner stating that ?[t]he cost for these revisions will be resolved between [Inland/plaintiff] and [the architect.] The owner will have no cost associated with this change in the mechanical system,? the contractor?s claim was enforceable as a matter of law. Inland Construction Company v. Cameron Park II, Ltd, LLC., 640 S.E. 2d 415, 417 (N. C. App. 2007.)

The defendant/owner had refused to pay based upon the e-mail, alleging equitable estoppel, among other affirmative defenses. The Court rejected the owner?s assertion that the e-mail created an obligation not to charge for the additional work on the part of Inland Construction because there was no consideration. Furthermore, both parties had tendered evidence by way of affidavit, indicating that the owner had actually initiated the additional HVAC work. There was no dispute that the ?project was organized in a traditional method of project delivery wherein Defendant contracted separately with an architect for design services and with Plaintiff for construction services.? Id. at 419. Finally, the owner had ?failed to demonstrate any prejudicial change in position as a result? of the e-mail,? and was ordered to pay the additional cost to general contractor. Id. The full opinion may be accessed here. (This blog entry was published by Liz Riley, a member of Womble Carlyle's construction and real estate development practice group.)

Full post as published by Womble Carlyle Constrution Industry Blog on September 07, 2007 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0146 secs (new cache)