County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
747 A.2d 600 | Court of Appeals of Maryland | 2000
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A construction contractor (Dashiell) sued a county for extra work costs and delays, claiming over $2 million in damages and seeking to recover $326,621 in withheld liquidated damages. The county moved to dismiss, arguing the contractor missed filing deadlines in the contract and couldn't pursue unjust enrichment claims because a written contract already covered the dispute. The court sided with the county, ruling that when parties have a signed contract addressing the issue, you cannot bypass it by claiming unjust enrichment instead.
Key Takeaways
- •If you sign a written contract with a client, you must follow its claim procedures and deadlines—you cannot ignore them and sue for unjust enrichment later
- •Always meet contract deadlines for filing disputes and change order requests; missing deadlines can bar your entire claim, even if the work was legitimate
- •Unjust enrichment claims only work when there is no express written contract; once a contract exists, it controls the dispute process
Express contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue for unjust enrichment if my client owes me money but we have a written contract?
No. Once a written contract exists between you and your client, you must follow the contract's procedures and deadlines to claim payment. You cannot bypass the contract by suing for unjust enrichment instead. If you miss the contract's filing deadlines, you may lose your right to recover the money entirely.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.