Disclaimer

  • The information contained in this blog is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any subject matter

Change Orders

May 01, 2008

Colorado adopts the "active interference" exception to no-damages-for-delay clauses

Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (Colo. App. 2008)

The Colorado Court of Appeals holds that no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforceable in Colorado, but that the "active interference" doctrine is a recognized exception to the enforceability of such clauses.

Continue reading "Colorado adopts the "active interference" exception to no-damages-for-delay clauses" »

February 07, 2008

Court Of Appeals Gives Lengthy Analysis Of Changed-Conditions Claims

URS Group, Inc. v. Tetra Tech FW, Inc. (Colo. App. 2008)

The Colorado Court of Appeals addresses in detail the elements of, and defenses against, a Type-I differing site conditions claim.

Continue reading "Court Of Appeals Gives Lengthy Analysis Of Changed-Conditions Claims" »

November 01, 2007

Quantum Meruit Claim Allowed For What Is Typically A Change Order Issue

Specialized Grading v. Goodland (Colo. App. 2007)

The Court of Appeals holds that a subcontractor can maintain a quantum meruit claim against the general contractor for alleged extras caused by the general's failure to dewater, despite the fact that the parties have a written contract. The general rule is that a quasi-contract claim cannot lie where the parties have an express contract. But this rule does not apply if the conduct complained of is subsequent to, and not covered by, the express terms of the contract.

Continue reading "Quantum Meruit Claim Allowed For What Is Typically A Change Order Issue" »

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

April 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30