Posts

Showing posts with the label cardinal change

Performance Bond and Cardinal Change

Image
Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. City of Marathon , 2011 WL 5825503 (S.D. Fla. 2011),  held that a performance bond surety is not responsible for a cardinal change on the  project, despite language in the contract where the surety consented to  changes. (RPPTL Subcommittee). Trenton H. Cotney Board Certified in Construction Law Trent Cotney, P.A. 1207 N Franklin St, Ste 222 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 579-3278 www.trentcotney.com

Cardinal Change and Payment

Image
"A contractor faced with a substantial change in its originally contracted scope of work, who is unable to successfully negotiate a price for that additional work, may elect to continue to work and reserve its right to subsequently obtain a judicial determination as to the value of the changes, so long as the other contracting party continues to demand performance of the increased scope of work, and in the absence of any conflicting provision of the contract."   Ted Jacob Engineering Group v. Ratcliff Architects ,  2010 WL 3294341 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.). Trenton H. Cotney Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law Glenn Rasmussen Fogarty & Hooker, P.A. 100 S. Ashley Dr., Suite 1300 Tampa, FL 33602 (813) 229-3333 www.trentcotney.com

Cardinal Change in Construction Contracts

Image
Case law defines a cardinal change as a change sought by the owner which is so excessive that it exceeds the original scope of the contract.  The seminal case on cardinal change is Saddler v. U.S ., 287 F.2d 411 (Ct. Cl. 1961).  In Saddler , a construction contract between the contractor and the federal government required the contractor to build a levee embankment.  A change in the design by the owner required the contractor to double the embankment’s length and more than double the volume of fill required to complete the project.  The contractor filed suit against the owner claiming that the excessive changes demanded by the owner constituted a breach of the contract.  The court held in favor of the contractor and stated “that the nature of this particular contract was so changed by the added work… as to amount to a cardinal alteration falling outside the scope of the contract.”  Id. at 414-15. Trenton H. Cotney Board Certified in Construction Law...