Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work
Exactly two years ago, the authors wrote about a stunning decision by a Texas appeals court that dismissed a contractor's $19-million jury verdict and directed the contractor instead to "take nothing" and to pay the owner $11 million in attorneys' fees. Many in the Texas contract...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983) N.Y. 1983), 2014-11, Vol.84 (11), p.88 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Magazinearticle |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 88 |
container_title | Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983) |
container_volume | 84 |
creator | Loulakis, Michael C McLaughlin, Lauren P |
description | Exactly two years ago, the authors wrote about a stunning decision by a Texas appeals court that dismissed a contractor's $19-million jury verdict and directed the contractor instead to "take nothing" and to pay the owner $11 million in attorneys' fees. Many in the Texas contracting industry were distressed that the court would disallow the delay claim when there was evidence that the owner had actively interfered with the contractor's performance. As it turns out, that ruling was erroneous. In Zachry Construction Corp v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, TX, the Supreme Court of Texas has overturned that decision, recognizing five exceptions to the no-damages-for-delay clause. The decision is a victory for Texas contractors, and owners may have misgivings regarding the subjectivity surrounding active interference. |
format | Magazinearticle |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1628862416</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3511789211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-da6a76e44b01395e453b82f568246fe159539b9c9a9f52805fdacbffb8bb43423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotzctKAzEYQOFQLHRsfYeAC1eB3OfPUgYvhUJdKF2WZCaxlyGpSYbi2yvo6uy-M0MNF8AI1QA3qKEAirSUywW6LeVEKYUWaIPM2-TGY4-31-gz3uUUP8M0jt94HavPwWc_4OuxHnCXYs22ryk_FLxL-bxC82DH4u_-u0Qfz0_v3SvZbF_W3eOGXBgTlQxW21Z7KR1lwigvlXDAg9LApQ6eKaOEcaY31gTFgaow2N6F4MA5KSQXS3T_515y-pp8qftTmnL8Xe6Z5gCaS6bFD7KgQ8Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><pqid>1628862416</pqid></control><display><type>magazinearticle</type><title>Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Loulakis, Michael C ; McLaughlin, Lauren P</creator><creatorcontrib>Loulakis, Michael C ; McLaughlin, Lauren P</creatorcontrib><description>Exactly two years ago, the authors wrote about a stunning decision by a Texas appeals court that dismissed a contractor's $19-million jury verdict and directed the contractor instead to "take nothing" and to pay the owner $11 million in attorneys' fees. Many in the Texas contracting industry were distressed that the court would disallow the delay claim when there was evidence that the owner had actively interfered with the contractor's performance. As it turns out, that ruling was erroneous. In Zachry Construction Corp v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, TX, the Supreme Court of Texas has overturned that decision, recognizing five exceptions to the no-damages-for-delay clause. The decision is a victory for Texas contractors, and owners may have misgivings regarding the subjectivity surrounding active interference.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0885-7024</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2381-0688</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CIEGAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: American Society of Civil Engineers</publisher><subject>Construction industry ; Contractors ; Damage claims ; State court decisions</subject><ispartof>Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983), 2014-11, Vol.84 (11), p.88</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society of Civil Engineers Nov 2014</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Loulakis, Michael C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLaughlin, Lauren P</creatorcontrib><title>Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work</title><title>Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983)</title><description>Exactly two years ago, the authors wrote about a stunning decision by a Texas appeals court that dismissed a contractor's $19-million jury verdict and directed the contractor instead to "take nothing" and to pay the owner $11 million in attorneys' fees. Many in the Texas contracting industry were distressed that the court would disallow the delay claim when there was evidence that the owner had actively interfered with the contractor's performance. As it turns out, that ruling was erroneous. In Zachry Construction Corp v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, TX, the Supreme Court of Texas has overturned that decision, recognizing five exceptions to the no-damages-for-delay clause. The decision is a victory for Texas contractors, and owners may have misgivings regarding the subjectivity surrounding active interference.</description><subject>Construction industry</subject><subject>Contractors</subject><subject>Damage claims</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><issn>0885-7024</issn><issn>2381-0688</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><recordid>eNotzctKAzEYQOFQLHRsfYeAC1eB3OfPUgYvhUJdKF2WZCaxlyGpSYbi2yvo6uy-M0MNF8AI1QA3qKEAirSUywW6LeVEKYUWaIPM2-TGY4-31-gz3uUUP8M0jt94HavPwWc_4OuxHnCXYs22ryk_FLxL-bxC82DH4u_-u0Qfz0_v3SvZbF_W3eOGXBgTlQxW21Z7KR1lwigvlXDAg9LApQ6eKaOEcaY31gTFgaow2N6F4MA5KSQXS3T_515y-pp8qftTmnL8Xe6Z5gCaS6bFD7KgQ8Q</recordid><startdate>20141101</startdate><enddate>20141101</enddate><creator>Loulakis, Michael C</creator><creator>McLaughlin, Lauren P</creator><general>American Society of Civil Engineers</general><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141101</creationdate><title>Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work</title><author>Loulakis, Michael C ; McLaughlin, Lauren P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p113t-da6a76e44b01395e453b82f568246fe159539b9c9a9f52805fdacbffb8bb43423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><prefilter>magazinearticle</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Construction industry</topic><topic>Contractors</topic><topic>Damage claims</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Loulakis, Michael C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McLaughlin, Lauren P</creatorcontrib><jtitle>Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Loulakis, Michael C</au><au>McLaughlin, Lauren P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work</atitle><jtitle>Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983)</jtitle><date>2014-11-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>88</spage><pages>88-</pages><issn>0885-7024</issn><eissn>2381-0688</eissn><coden>CIEGAG</coden><abstract>Exactly two years ago, the authors wrote about a stunning decision by a Texas appeals court that dismissed a contractor's $19-million jury verdict and directed the contractor instead to "take nothing" and to pay the owner $11 million in attorneys' fees. Many in the Texas contracting industry were distressed that the court would disallow the delay claim when there was evidence that the owner had actively interfered with the contractor's performance. As it turns out, that ruling was erroneous. In Zachry Construction Corp v. Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, TX, the Supreme Court of Texas has overturned that decision, recognizing five exceptions to the no-damages-for-delay clause. The decision is a victory for Texas contractors, and owners may have misgivings regarding the subjectivity surrounding active interference.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>American Society of Civil Engineers</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0885-7024 |
ispartof | Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983), 2014-11, Vol.84 (11), p.88 |
issn | 0885-7024 2381-0688 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1628862416 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
subjects | Construction industry Contractors Damage claims State court decisions |
title | Public Owner Wrongfully Interfered with Contractor's Work |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T10%3A14%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20Owner%20Wrongfully%20Interfered%20with%20Contractor's%20Work&rft.jtitle=Civil%20engineering%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.%201983)&rft.au=Loulakis,%20Michael%20C&rft.date=2014-11-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=88&rft.pages=88-&rft.issn=0885-7024&rft.eissn=2381-0688&rft.coden=CIEGAG&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3511789211%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1628862416&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |