This site and all blogs on this site are intended for informational purposes only. The purpose of this site is not intended to create an attorney client relationship or not a substitution for legal advise. Always seek legal advise from a credible lawyer.
As personal injury lawyers at Penney and Associates we will give a reasonable free initial consultation on your injury case, whether a car crash or any other type of injury.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Contractor and Subcontractor Dispute
Our office in Loomis, California recently took a case to trial in Placer County Superior Court. Penney and Associates, John Garcia represented the plaintiff.
Plaintiff provided a bid to defendant for labor and to supply and install metal frame and gypsum board on building # 14 and its mirror building #15 located in Roseville, California, for the sum of $494,470. The bid stated that it was valid for 30 days.
In sum, discussions between the parties noted that the bid was five months old. Thus during a later meeting they agreed that plaintiff had to keep the price the same because the bid had been used to obtain construction financing. During this meeting there were also discussions about the installation of a "dryvit" system and the "level of finish" required for the drywall. There were conflicting testimony's about what was agreed on. Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 finish which was part of the price, plaintiffs contend that it was extra. Plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 but for an additional price.
On March 15, 2005, defendant drafted the "Project Subcontract Agreement" and "Master Subcontract Agreement," which were executed by both plaintiff and defendant. The contracts called for plaintiff to supply and install metal stud and drywall per plans for building #14. The defendant testified that they made a mistake with their computer software and forgot to contain the language concerning the "Dryvit" system.
Plaintiff completed its work on Building #14 except for some miscellaneous "punchlist" items. The defendant than replaced plaintiff with another subcontractor to complete the "Dryvit" system. The defendant only paid plaintiff a portion of the contract. Plaintiff recorded a mechanic's lien on the property and filed suit to perfect the mechanic's liens for the sum of $72,034.65. Prior to trial defendant recorded a Mechanic's Lien Release Bond from Fidelity Insurance Company and plaintiff proceeded with a collection action against the release bond.
The jury awarded plaintiff $52,125.00. During settlement discussions plaintiff agreed to take $45,000 and defendant refused and agreed to only pay $15,000.
Penney and Associates cannot guarantee the same result for similar circumstances.
Plaintiff provided a bid to defendant for labor and to supply and install metal frame and gypsum board on building # 14 and its mirror building #15 located in Roseville, California, for the sum of $494,470. The bid stated that it was valid for 30 days.
In sum, discussions between the parties noted that the bid was five months old. Thus during a later meeting they agreed that plaintiff had to keep the price the same because the bid had been used to obtain construction financing. During this meeting there were also discussions about the installation of a "dryvit" system and the "level of finish" required for the drywall. There were conflicting testimony's about what was agreed on. Defendants contend that plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 finish which was part of the price, plaintiffs contend that it was extra. Plaintiff agreed to install drywall to a level 4 but for an additional price.
On March 15, 2005, defendant drafted the "Project Subcontract Agreement" and "Master Subcontract Agreement," which were executed by both plaintiff and defendant. The contracts called for plaintiff to supply and install metal stud and drywall per plans for building #14. The defendant testified that they made a mistake with their computer software and forgot to contain the language concerning the "Dryvit" system.
Plaintiff completed its work on Building #14 except for some miscellaneous "punchlist" items. The defendant than replaced plaintiff with another subcontractor to complete the "Dryvit" system. The defendant only paid plaintiff a portion of the contract. Plaintiff recorded a mechanic's lien on the property and filed suit to perfect the mechanic's liens for the sum of $72,034.65. Prior to trial defendant recorded a Mechanic's Lien Release Bond from Fidelity Insurance Company and plaintiff proceeded with a collection action against the release bond.
The jury awarded plaintiff $52,125.00. During settlement discussions plaintiff agreed to take $45,000 and defendant refused and agreed to only pay $15,000.
Penney and Associates cannot guarantee the same result for similar circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
