Construction law cases Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Construction law cases - Case Study spokespersonThe contractile organ could have requested for Request For Information on the matter.A consultant engineer entered into a contract with City of San Marcos. A written consent was required to any modification from the node to affirmer. A request was orally done in modification of scope of build which is in contrast to the asserter. The take of the city allowed oral contracts to contractors possessing requisite authority. The agreement between the client and contractor in this case reveals that the contractor possessed requisite authority. Any modification in the scope of mold was binding be in in writing or verbal. The consultant is therefore obliged to carry out the scope of work and claim for payment upon completion.The contractor subcontracted part of the work. The contractor made oral request to the sub contractor who claimed for compensation. Communication in execution of work must always be in writing. If the subcontractor ex ecuted work that was orally communicated by the contractor, the contractor is non obliged to any claim. This is because it was a non approved mode of conference according to the tender document. Secondly, the subcontractor cannot claim for any payment from the client because the contract is binding between the client and the general contractor.In this case, the subcontractor claims a breach of contractor by the general contractor for not salaried him upon completion of work. The general contractor claimed that he had not received payments from the client for the work executed by the subcontractor. According to the Paid if Paid clause, the subcontractor does not have any link with the client and the contractor has no right to withholds payments to the subcontractor. This is exceptional for a case where the contractor indicated in the contract document that sub contractor will receive payment after payment has been made to the contractor by the client. However, the contractor shoul d not more than what the client owns