Lafayette Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Roy Anderson Corp.

71 F. Supp. 2d 582 | District Court, S.D. Mississippi | 1997

enforcedCited 2 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A 'pay-when-paid' clause in a construction subcontract does not shift the risk of owner nonpayment to the subcontractor but merely grants the contractor a reasonable time to effect payment, and the contractor's duty to pay is enforceable once that reasonable time has elapsed.

Article 13 is a pay-when-paid clause allowing defendant reasonable time to pay.

District Court, S.D. Mississippi, 1997

Related Cases

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

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.

Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi

1992enforced

A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.

Rocor International, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

2002modified

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.

Weize Co. v. Colorado Regional Construction, Inc.

2010affirmed

A general contractor violated Colorado's construction trust fund statute by failing to hold funds in trust for subcontractors and suppliers, and a lien release bond does not exempt contractors from trust fund obligations or excuse failure to record a lis pendens.

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc.

2010enforced

A supplier cannot enforce a payment obligation against a project owner based on a letter offering optional direct payment arrangements, where the supplier's own deposition testimony demonstrates it never understood the letter as a binding contract.

Sage Street Associates v. Northdale Construction Co.

1993remanded

Texas Constitution's usury provision applies only to lending transactions, not to judicially-awarded prejudgment interest, which derives from court order rather than commercial agreement.