Construction Law Blog - Contracting

Disclaimer: The content provided on this website is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information provided is intended for general information which may or may not reflect the most current developments. Although these materials may be prepared by legal professionals, they should not be used as a substitute for professional services. By using this website you expressly agree that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the drafter of the content of this website. If you have a question regarding a particular issue or need legal advice, please contact one of the attorneys at AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC.

The opinions or viewpoints expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of AHLERS & CRESSMAN, PLLC any link to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites. The links provided are maintained by the respective organizations, and they are solely responsible for the content of their own sites.

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | Feb 19, 2010 | Topics: Contracting, Regulatory Administration | View Article

State of Oregon Streamlines Transportation Project by Standardizing a Collaborative-Construction Process

The state Oregon’s 2009 Jobs and Transportation Act continues the practice in the state of Oregon that began a decade ago, in which government agencies collaborate on major construction transportation projects. Eleven state and federal agencies work together in CETAS (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining). In a CETAS, ODOT commits funding for liaisons with other agencies; ODOT then compensates the agencies for their time, which guarantees resources are available to expedite the permitting and regulatory process of heavy highway and transportation projects.

To read the article click here

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | Oct 29, 2009 | Topics: Construction Defect, Construction News and Notes, Contracting, Damages, Indemnity | View Article

OREGON COURT OF APPEALS RULES THAT BUILDERS IN OREGON CAN BE SUED FOR "NEGLIGENT CONSTRUCTION" IF A BUILDING CODE VIOLATION IS INVOLVED

A recent decision by the Oregon Appeals Court allows property owners to file negligence lawsuits against contractors for building-code violations. In a construction defect case brought eight (8) years after the construction was substantially complete, the Court ruled that the breach of contract action against the contractor was barred by the six (6) year statute of limitation, however, allowed the homeowners to sue the contractor on a negligence cause of action which has a two (2) year statute of limitation with a "discovery" proviso (the cause of action must be commenced within two (2) years of discovery). Though the discovery of the alleged construction defect occurred well after the contract statute of limitations had run, the lawsuit was brought within two (2) years of the date of the discovery of the alleged defect. The Court reasoned that because the water leakage, which was at the heart of the allegation, involved possible violations of the Oregon building-code, the homeowners were allowed to bring a negligence cause of action against the contractor.

This case has far reaching implications for commercial contractors (and their insurers), involved in construction defect disputes. Since most "construction defects" involve some violation of some provision of the building code, an owner now has two (2) years from the date of discovery of the defect (irrespective whether the contract statute of limitations has expired) to bring a cause of action against builders and their insurance companies.

Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc., Or. App. __, WL 2766868 (2009)

Posted By: John P. Ahlers | Mar 05, 2008 | Topics: Contracting, Damages | View Article

A Design Omission Does Not Automatically Create a Contract Ambiguity

Dick Pacific/GHEMM, JV ("Dick Pacific") was the general contactor for the $138.3 Bassett Hospital at Fort Wainwright, AK.  The owner of the project was the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers.  Dick Pacific subcontracted the installation of the medical case work to ISEC, Inc. for $2.1 million.

Posted By: Brett Hill | Feb 28, 2008 | Topics: Contracting | View Article

Court of Appeals rules that additional terms in paint supplier's invoices that materially alter the parties' agreement do not form a part of contract with purchaser

The Court of Appeals ruled that the warranty disclaimers and other terms in a paint supplier's invoices that materially altered its agreement with the purchaser did not form a part of the parties' contract and were not enforceable.