Johnny – a prominent real estate developer – contracted an architectural firm TWP Incorporated to design an office build
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:56 pm
Johnny – a prominent real estate developer – contracted an
architectural firm TWP Incorporated to design an office building,
and to manage the subsequent development of the building. TWP
contracted Mr. Charlson – an engineer – as a consultant to oversee
the structural aspect of the construction, including a rooftop
patio on top of the building. Upon completion of the design, Jonny
contracted an experienced contractor – Amber – for the construction
of the building. Unfortunately, within three years of completing
the construction, a significant number of leaks occurred in the
roof top patio, resulting in water leaks into the floors below and
causing significant water damage. The contract specifications had
called for a rubberized membrane to be installed for waterproofing
the patio. However, during construction, at the suggestion of Amber
(contractor) and without the knowledge of the owner, another
membrane product was substituted for the rubberized membrane
specified. Neither the Mr. Charlson (engineer) nor TWP
(architectural firm) objected to the substitution when it was
suggested. Amber had suggested the substitute membrane because it
was more readily available and would speed completion of
construction. During the investigation into the cause of the leaks,
another structural engineer provided its opinion that the
rubberized membrane was a superior product to the substituted
membrane; that the substituted membrane was brittle and could
fracture or crack under expansion and contraction; that the winter
temperatures had contributed to the breakdown of the substitute
membrane as it became more brittle at colder temperatures; and that
the substitute membrane should not have been used on an exposed,
dynamic surface deck. The second engineer also expressed the
opinion that the designers ought to have taken into account the
non-static nature of the deck and should not have accepted the
substitute membrane. Ultimately, to remedy the leaks, the
substitute membrane had to be replaced by the rubberized membrane
originally specified in the contract. If Johnny were to bring the
case to court right away, what would likely happen? Please perform
a legal analysis of the case, that is: 1: What legal concept does
this case deal with? What are the legal precedents for this concept
relevant to this case? What are the key tests / legal principles
for this legal concept? 2: Who are the parties involved (defendant
/ plaintiff)? If Johnny were to bring the case to court right away,
is he okay with respect to the time limitation? 3: Apply the legal
principles / tests to determine if the legal concept has been
proven. 4: How would the court likely decide? Who will be ordered
to pay damages? What are the damages?
architectural firm TWP Incorporated to design an office building,
and to manage the subsequent development of the building. TWP
contracted Mr. Charlson – an engineer – as a consultant to oversee
the structural aspect of the construction, including a rooftop
patio on top of the building. Upon completion of the design, Jonny
contracted an experienced contractor – Amber – for the construction
of the building. Unfortunately, within three years of completing
the construction, a significant number of leaks occurred in the
roof top patio, resulting in water leaks into the floors below and
causing significant water damage. The contract specifications had
called for a rubberized membrane to be installed for waterproofing
the patio. However, during construction, at the suggestion of Amber
(contractor) and without the knowledge of the owner, another
membrane product was substituted for the rubberized membrane
specified. Neither the Mr. Charlson (engineer) nor TWP
(architectural firm) objected to the substitution when it was
suggested. Amber had suggested the substitute membrane because it
was more readily available and would speed completion of
construction. During the investigation into the cause of the leaks,
another structural engineer provided its opinion that the
rubberized membrane was a superior product to the substituted
membrane; that the substituted membrane was brittle and could
fracture or crack under expansion and contraction; that the winter
temperatures had contributed to the breakdown of the substitute
membrane as it became more brittle at colder temperatures; and that
the substitute membrane should not have been used on an exposed,
dynamic surface deck. The second engineer also expressed the
opinion that the designers ought to have taken into account the
non-static nature of the deck and should not have accepted the
substitute membrane. Ultimately, to remedy the leaks, the
substitute membrane had to be replaced by the rubberized membrane
originally specified in the contract. If Johnny were to bring the
case to court right away, what would likely happen? Please perform
a legal analysis of the case, that is: 1: What legal concept does
this case deal with? What are the legal precedents for this concept
relevant to this case? What are the key tests / legal principles
for this legal concept? 2: Who are the parties involved (defendant
/ plaintiff)? If Johnny were to bring the case to court right away,
is he okay with respect to the time limitation? 3: Apply the legal
principles / tests to determine if the legal concept has been
proven. 4: How would the court likely decide? Who will be ordered
to pay damages? What are the damages?