An unpublished opinion from a federal court in
It stated: The Virginia Supreme Court has held that "when one furnishes labor to another under a contract which, for reasons not prejudicial to the former, is void and of no effect, he may recover the value of his services on a quantum meruit." Marine Dev't Corp. v. Rodak, 225
There you go, thanks for stopping by today.
Ok. I’ll try to provide a little insight. An electrical contractor was doing a project for a public entity. The contractor wanted some change orders for some extra work. The construction agreement had specific procedures to follow for requesting and receiving change orders. The contractor followed those procedures….for awhile. At some point, the contractor stopped following those procedures for additional extra work it did and tried to get paid. The owner refused to pay for the extra work and then the contractor sued to recover the value of that work as being outside of the construction contract. But the court found that the contractor failed to follow the prescribed method outlined in the parties' contract to obtain approval and payment for extra work -- a method with which it was not only familiar, but which it had in fact utilized.
Do you always know and understand the terms and conditions and the procedures of your construction contract for getting change orders approved? If your construction agreement has a path to follow for change orders, follow it, particularly if you’ve already started down that path once before.
Click here for a nice summary and copy of the decision.
The
Contract to Decision: 5 years 9 months









Comments