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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Civil engineering (New York, N.Y. 1983) N.Y. 1983), 2014-11, Vol.84 (11), p.88
Hauptverfasser: Loulakis, Michael C, McLaughlin, Lauren P
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