Traco Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Comtrol, Inc.
2007 UT App 407 | Court of Appeals of Utah | 2007
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Traco Steel Erectors disputed change orders and lien waivers issued by general contractor Comtrol across three projects. The court enforced signed change orders as binding agreements (accord and satisfaction) even when Traco claimed mistakes, and ruled that interim lien waivers with clear language permanently released all claims for work performed before their execution dates. This case matters because it shows courts will hold subcontractors to signed change orders and lien waivers they've accepted, regardless of later disputes.
Key Takeaways
- •Never sign a change order unless you fully agree with it—courts treat signed change orders as final settlements that override prior disputes
- •Lien waivers with explicit language release all claims for work up to their date, so review the effective date carefully before signing
- •Document everything in writing and get written confirmation before accepting back charges or additional work assignments
Acceptance of this contract modification constitutes an accord and satisfaction.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I challenge a change order I signed if I later think it was unfair or a mistake?
No, not easily. Once you sign a change order, courts treat it as a final settlement (accord and satisfaction) that resolves the dispute, even if you later claim you made a mistake. This is why you must carefully review and negotiate any change order before signing it.
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.