- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 1 (80.42 KiB) Viewed 45 times
- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 2 (72.32 KiB) Viewed 45 times
- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 3 (91.14 KiB) Viewed 45 times
- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 4 (68.67 KiB) Viewed 45 times
- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 5 (54.91 KiB) Viewed 45 times
- Case 6 Awesome Architects Inc Aai An Architectural Firm To Create The Plans And Specifications And To Administer 6 (94.04 KiB) Viewed 45 times
Case #1 Mega Manufacturer, Inc. (MMI) sought to build a new factory. MMI retained Awesome Architects, Inc. (AAI), an architectural firm, to create the plans and specifications and to administer the project. Based upon this design, the owner entered into a $2 million fixed-price contract with Prime Builder, Inc. The prime contract mandated arbitration of any claims between MMI and Prime Builder. Prime Builder hired several subcontractors. Each subcontract provided that the subcontractor would be paid "if and only after" Prime Builder was paid for the subcontract work by MMI. No subcontract required arbitration of disputes. Midway through performance, MMI suffered financial reverses and was slow in paying Prime Builder. The contractor in turn stopped paying the subcontractors. Eventually, Prime Builder terminated the prime contract because it had not been paid AAI filed a mechanics' lien against the improved property because it had not been fully paid for its design work. Subcontractor #1 sued Prime Builder for nonpayment. Subcontractor #1's window supplier filed a mechanics' lien against the improved property. Subcontractor #2 sued MMI for unjust enrichment, besides suing MMI for nonpayment, the Prime Builder sued all three subcontractors for defective performance, seeking the cost of repairing their defective work. Question: Using all the content you have learned in the course this semester, please evaluate this scenario from a legal perspective. I will be looking for legal terms and jargon, case law justification and citation of source of your response. You need to include at minimum a statement and/or discussion on the source or statement of the problem; rights and duties; sub-bids rights/issues; bidding bargaining situations and penalties/notices/claims/contracts. I will be looking for original thought. A plagiarism check will be run on your Exam. Limit your response to no more than 4 pages, single spaced, size 12 font. No more than 2 graphs or tables if applicable.
Case #3 Mega Manufacturer, Inc. (MMI) sought to build a new factory. MMI retained Awesome Architects, Inc. (AAI), an architectural firm, to create the plans and specifications. Based upon this design, the owner entered into a $2 million fixed-price contract with Prime Builder, Inc. Prime Builder hired several subcontractors, including a foundation subcontractor (Foundation, Inc.), an electrical subcontractor (Electrical, Inc.), and a roofing subcontractor (Roofer, Inc.). The foundation subcontract required Foundation to "indemnify" MMI and Prime Builder against any damages, loss or claim for personal injury, or property damage arising out of Foundation's performance of its subcontract "however caused." The Electrical subcontract required Electrical to indemnify Prime Builder against any damages, loss or claim for personal injury, property damage, or loss of use but "only to the extent caused by" Electricals negligence or breach of contract. The Roofer subcontract contained no indemnity provision. Things did not go smoothly on the project. The newly built foundation failed a compression test. The problem was traced to a defective soil report relied upon by Alin creating the foundation's design. Foundation, Inc. was required to redo the foundation. This delayed the start of work by other subcontractors. An employee of Electrical, Jane Sparks, suffered an electrical shock while working on a line she thought was turned off. It turned out that Electricals' foreman forgot to tell Prime Builder to turn off electricity to that part of the building. Sparks had tested the line before working on it, and the volt meter had shown the line was dead. The volt meter was manufactured by Atoms Manufacturing, Inc. Prime Builder's foreman, while inspecting the half-completed roof first thing in the morning (and before Electricals' employees had arrived), slipped on ice and fell off company policy. Litigation ensued. The foundation's failure resulted in MMI imposing liquidated damages (see Section 20.12) on Prime Builder. The contractor brought a "contractual indemnity" claim against Foundation to recover those damages. Sparks sued Prime Builder for negligence in failing to make sure the electricity was cut off to an area of the building where Electrical was working. Sparks separately sued Atoms Mfg. for products liability. Prime Builder brought (1) a "contribution" claim against Atoms Mfg. and (2) a "contractual indemnity" claim against Electrical. Prime Builder's foreman sued Roofer for premises liability, on the ground that his access to the roof had not been blocked until the safety of accessing the roof could be assessed. Roofer brought a "contribution" claim against the prime contractor. Question: Using all the content you have learned in the course this semester, please evaluate this scenario from a legal perspective. I will be looking for legal terms and jargon, case law justification and citation of source of your response. You need to include at minimum a detailed discussion on loss; responsibilities; liabilities related to this case; indemnity/limitations/exculpation/regulations and insurance. I will be looking for original thought. A plagiarism check will be run on your Exam. Limit your response to no more than 4 pages, single spaced, size 12 font. No more than 2 graphs or tables if applicable.
Case #2 Oliver and Olivia Owners decided to build their dream home. The Owners retained Awesome Architects, Inc. (AAI), an architectural firm, to create the plans and specifications and to administer the project. The Owners hired Prime Builder, Inc. as prime contractor, using an American Institute of Architects General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, AIA A201-2007. Prime Builder hired several subcontractors. Prime Builder began performance. The city's building inspector happened to be driving by and saw the new construction. Curious, he checked and found that no building permit had been issued. He ordered the work stopped until the Owners put in an application for a permit, which was then approved. AAI, meanwhile, was unhappy with the quality of the contractor's work. Within a week after the foundation was poured, it began to crack. AAl determined the soil preparation work was not properly done. It ordered Prime Builder to remove the foundation and redo the soil preparation, which the contractor did. Prime Builder began to suffer reduced cash flow, which caused it to delay paying subcontractors. As a result, subcontractors began not to show up, and the entire project slowed down. Just a month before the completion date, the work was only half done. The Owners despaired that the project would never be completed. They asked AAI to determine whether the prime may be terminated for cause. AAI thought termination would be justified, as it seemed impossible for Prime Builder to finish on time. The next day the Owners mailed a letter to Prime Builder, informing the contractor that the contract was immediately terminated for cause. Claiming the termination was wrongful, Prime Builder sued the Owners for breach of contract. Question: Using all the content you have learned in the course this semester, please evaluate this scenario from a legal perspective. I will be looking for legal terms and jargon, case law justification and citation of source of your response. You need to include at minimum a detailed discussion on terminations and the relevant factors; reinstatement; notices and subcontractor concerns related to this case. I will be looking for original thought. A plagiarism check will be run on your Exam. Limit your response to no more than 4 pages, single spaced, size 12 font. No more than 2 graphs or tables if applicable.
Case #4 Mega Manufacturer, Inc. (MMI) sought to build a new factory. MMI retained Awesome Architects, Inc. (AAI), an architectural firm, to create the plans and specifications. Based upon this design, MMI entered into a $2 million fixed-price contract with Prime Builder, Inc. Prime Builder hired several subcontractors, including a excavation subcontractor (Excavator) and a window installer (Window Wizard, Inc.). Under the design contract, AAI was to inspect the work to determine the contractor's entitlement to progress payments. The contract excluded AA's responsibility for the contractor's means and methods of performance. The project suffered from heavy rains. During one inspection, the AAI employee (a licensed architect) measured the amount of excavation work completed. He noticed the trench where Excavator's employees were working was water logged, but he said nothing. Shortly after he left, the trench caved in, injuring an Excavator employee. Late on a Friday, Window Wizard installed several windows with wooden frames. The employee forgot to caulk the windows. That weekend, a hurricane struck and the project was not resumed until the following week. When Window Wizard returned, it discovered the window frames had begun to rot. In addition, the drywall surrounding the windows were also molding. As a result (1) Prime Builder replaced the drywall and (2) Window Wizard replaced the windows. Question: Using all the content you have learned in the course this semester, please evaluate this scenario from a legal perspective, I will be looking for legal terms and jargon, case law justification and citation of source of your response. You need to include at minimum a detailed discussion on the most relevant aspects of insurance applicable to this case; insurance consequences; claims and project delivery. A plagiarism check will be run on your Exam. Limit your response to no more than 4 pages, single spaced, size 12 font. No more than 2 graphs or tables if applicable.
Case #5 Mega Manufacturer, Inc. (MMI) sought to build a new factory. MMI retained Awesome Architects, Inc. (AAI), an architectural firm, to create the plans and specifications and administer the project. Based upon this design, the owner entered into a $2 million fixed-price contract with Prime Builder, Inc. Under the prime contract, Prime Builder was required to obtain payment and performance bonds, which it acquired from Surety, Inc. To obtain the bonds, Prime Builder and its individual owners entered into an indemnity agreement broadly promising to reimburse Surety for its expenses incurred "by or under the bond." Prime Builder hired several subcontractors, including a framing subcontractor (Framer) and a roofing subcontractor (Roofer). Framer built the building's framework with lumber purchased from a supplier. Roofer assembled materials on the site in preparation for building the roof. AAl was unhappy with the quality of the work and consistently approved only partial payments for Prime Builder. The prime contractor began cutting back on payments to subcontractors and suppliers. When these parties complained to Surety, Surety investigated and discovered that Prime Builder's finances were in disarray. On February 25, Surety informed MMI to forward all future progress payments to it. Instead, MMI sent a $100,000 progress payment on March 1 to its contractor. On March 20, MMI declared Prime Builder in default and terminated the prime contract. MMI notified Surety of its actions. On March 21, a fire destroyed Roofer's materials (which were still in storage on the ground) before they could be removed. On March 25, Prime Builder wrote a long letter to Surety, explaining that its cash flow problems were caused by AAI's failure to certify payments and as a result that its termination by MMI was wrongful. The prime asked Surety not to assume its bond obligations. Instead, Surety hired Prime Builder to complete the project. MMI objected, stating that it would not allow Prime Builder back unto the site. Question: Using all the content you have learned in the course this semester, please evaluate this scenario from a legal perspective. I will be looking for legal terms and jargon, case law justification and citation of source of your response. You need to include at minimum a detailed discussion on bonds; surety; obligation; performance; liabilities; payments; claims; reimbursements; regulations; bankruptcy and contracts outside the USA. A plagiarism check will be run on your Exam. Limit your response to no more than 4 pages, single spaced, size 12 font. No more than 2 graphs or tables if applicable.