Terry Matthews, Inc. v. C & L CONTRACTING, INC.
959 F. Supp. 1434 | District Court, W.D. Oklahoma | 1997
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Terry Matthews, Inc., a subcontractor, performed extra work for C & L Contracting under oral agreements that modified the original written subcontract, even though the contract required written change orders. The court ruled that subcontractors can recover payment for extra work based on executed oral agreements, and that signing a lien waiver for partial payment does not prevent recovery for work done after the waiver date. This decision protects subcontractors who perform work based on verbal instructions from site supervisors, even when formal change order procedures aren't followed.
Key Takeaways
- •Oral agreements can modify written subcontracts in Oklahoma—you may have a valid claim for extra work even without a signed change order if you can prove the agreement was made and work was completed.
- •A lien waiver only covers work and payment up to its date—signing one for partial payment doesn't waive your right to claim additional work performed after that date.
- •Document all verbal agreements about extra work immediately, including who authorized it, what was agreed, and when work was performed, to meet the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard courts require.
Written contracts may be modified by executed oral agreements under Oklahoma law.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get paid for extra work if my boss told me to do it verbally, but we never signed a change order?
Yes, under Oklahoma law you can recover for extra work based on a verbal agreement, even if your contract requires written change orders. However, you must prove the agreement was made and the work was completed. Document everything in writing immediately—emails, texts, or written notes from the conversation—because you'll need clear evidence to win your case.
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.
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
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.