DeCarlo & Doll, Inc. v. Dilozir
45 Conn. App. 633 | Connecticut Appellate Court | 1997
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A contractor sued for payment after completing engineering services. The owner claimed he didn't have to pay because project financing never came through. The Connecticut court ruled that a payment clause tied to financing is just about timing, not a condition that eliminates the payment obligation. The owner must pay within a reasonable time even if financing falls through.
Key Takeaways
- •Don't accept 'pay when financed' clauses as excuses for non-payment. Courts treat them as timing provisions, not ways to avoid paying you.
- •If a contract says payment depends on financing, you can still demand payment within a reasonable time if financing doesn't happen.
- •Get clear written agreements about payment terms upfront. Vague language about financing can lead to disputes and costly litigation.
Subject to payment clause sets time of payment, not condition precedent to payment.
Frequently Asked Question
If my contract says I get paid when the project gets financing, can the owner refuse to pay if financing falls through?
No. Courts treat financing-dependent payment clauses as timing provisions, not conditions that eliminate payment. You're still owed payment within a reasonable time, even if financing never materializes. Make sure your contract clearly states when payment is due if financing doesn't happen.
Related Cases
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.
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.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.
Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
An insured may assert an article 21.21 claim against its excess liability carrier for unfair claim settlement practices, but liability requires proof of a proper settlement demand within policy limits that an ordinarily prudent insurer would accept.