• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/6

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

6 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

Broadway Maintenance VS Rutgers

Rutgers-Owner


Briscoe-Prime (In charge of Schedule etc.)


Broadway Maintenance- Specialty contractor



Broadway sued rutgers for


1-Failure to Coordinate Project


2- failure to comply timely performance by 3rd party contractor.



Broadway was denied the right to sue Rutgers because Briscoe was overall in charge of schedule



The plaintiffs were denied the right to sue Briscoe also bc they did not hold a contract with them.



Plante VS Jacobs

Plante-Home Builder Jacobs-Owner



Plante received 20,000 for payments through out the project but stopped work as soon as the plaintiff no longer rrecweived payments. they filed a lien on the property

watson Lumber Company VS Guenewig

Plaintiff- Watson Lumber. they Collected 23,500 That resulted in extras through out the construction process.

Bethlehem Steel Corp VS Chicago

Plaintiff- Bethlehem Steel, claimed that eastern Chicago committed fraud. Eastern Chicago claimed that the steel came



The court was on Bethelehelm Steel side and claimed that it was a breach of contract to not pay for the 1st shipmment.

Fruin-Colnon Corp VS Niagra Frontier Transportation authority

Plaiontiff- Fruin-Colnon



1st dispute- Differing of site dispute. Resulted in rocovering over 3 mill.



2nd Dispute- Watertightless- This awarded the palintiff 500,000 for regrouting the tunnel.



3rd Dispute- Plaintiff left voids btw tunnell and liner which was different than stated in the contract. This resulted in the owner claiming 750,000 from the contractor.


Blake Construction V United States

U.S. was suspicous that They overpayed Blake Construction so they asked for an audit. Blake knew there was no renogotiation clause permitted but let the U.S. perform the audit. U.S overpayed Blake by 57,000. They sued Blake and the money went back to the Gov.