Vanterpool v. Government of the Virgin Islands
63 V.I. 563 | Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands | 2015
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A contractor performed hurricane repair work on Virgin Islands schools under emergency contracts worth about $3.9 million. Government officials verbally requested additional repairs worth $6.7 million, but never issued written change orders. The contractor sued for the extra work. The court ruled that a jury should decide whether the verbal requests created a binding contract modification, reversing the government's summary judgment win.
Key Takeaways
- •Verbal change orders can be enforceable even without written documentation if government officials clearly requested the work and you performed it in reliance on those requests.
- •Don't assume silence or lack of a formal written change order means you won't get paid—document all verbal requests from officials and keep detailed records of extra work performed.
- •Summary judgment (winning without a trial) is harder to get when there are disputed facts about what was actually agreed to, so courts often let juries decide these contract disputes.
Reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get paid for extra work if a government official asked me to do it verbally but never gave me a written change order?
Yes, possibly. This case shows courts will let a jury decide whether verbal requests from officials created a binding agreement to pay for extra work. You need to prove the official clearly requested the work and you reasonably relied on that request by performing it. Keep detailed records of who asked for what and when.
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.
Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.
A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.