Questions On Wether Superintendent Allowed Extension Of Time Reasonably And As Per The Provision Of Clause 35.5

2. The inclusion by Mr. Jeves in the addendum of sentence re. inspection certificates follows from the condition precedent in the original k that Montane must be satisfied w/ the lease arrangement. Therefore, it does not seem that the purchasers showed “intent” different from what the original k stated.

Codelfa Construction (Plaintiff) had a contract with State Rail Authority NSW (Defendant) to excavate the tunnels for the railway in New South Wales. The contract agreed to complete the work in assured dates and finish it within 130 weeks, to finish work Codelfa were suppose to work three shifts a day and 7 days a week; initially Codelfa Construction was working accordingly. The work was to dig a tunnel so offcourse it was very noisy and caused some vibrations which were annoying to the surrounding residents which led to application quite a few application of nuisance and after a while Codelfa Construction had an injunction where they were forced to reduce the work hours by two shifts a day and not working on Sundays. The problem started here as the working hours were reduced so Codelfa Constructions was not able to finish the work in the set period of time which was given according to the contract therefore Codelfa Construction’s budget did exceed than mentioned in the contract and they needed more time to finish the work.

I’m writing this notice of disputes to inform you that I disagree with the proposal of change the construction program in accordance with AS4000 clause 42.1. I found the instruction given was not practical and I cannot agree to follow it. Followed with the original contractual agreement, I have made the prearrangements with the subcontractors for the program to be commenced. The change of the program you instructed will cause cancellation of the prearrangements. It does affect the program progress in the following aspects. It may cost me additional costs for breaking the agreements also impacts on my reputation and relationships with the subcontractors, for which I may submit the written notice of disputes followed with the claim due to the

The error was obvious and can be proven as the owner forgot unintentionally to “insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank.” The contractor asked to be given the opportunity to show to the court and to the owner his estimate.

In case of an Inexcusable delay, the contractor isn’t entitled to receive an extension or any additional compensation; and, rather, the owner may be entitled for the compensation of liquidated damages or actual damages.

The Contract language under 2.3 "Designing to Budget" leaves it to the Owner's discretion regarding the payment of additional design services when the cost exceeds 5%- in particular under 2.3.3.2 if the Construction Costs are due to scope changes. The PH project team is in receipt of an amendment notice from Moseley on 2-14-17 requesting our consideration for compensation for the additional 18,000 square feet.

In further support of its position that the 2007 agreement constitutes a substitute contract, National Surety cites the integration clause contained therein which provides: “[t]he Parties do hereby acknowledge and agree that this Agreement constitutes their entire understanding with respect to the matters herein set forth.” (E. 890; Appellant’s Brief at p. 10) This argument is easily dispensed with because the scope of the integration clause is limited “with respect to the matters herein set forth.” In this case, the “matters herein set forth” relate only to the payment dispute that arose toward the completion of the project.

This is an open book and open notes exam. You may use whatever materials you feel

I have been doing some research on FAR Clause 52.212-4(c) and believe we can one (1) one mod all encompassing. The FAR Clause 52.212-4(c) allows for "change orders." The only stipulation I could find was the "change order" most be bilateral as the Contractor may be entitle to an equitable adjustment. As the "change order" was to add work/supplies to NAS JAX and Mayport (and it is within reason) and this change resulted in an equitable adjustment $13k 52.212-4(c) would apply. Also, moving down to (f) this clause allows for "excusable delays." The excusable delay that is allowable and pertains to this case is " Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity."

We have come to the decision that changing the accounting method from percentage-of-completion to the completed contract method is unnecessary. During our internal investigation, it became clear that LabCo needed a change in the accounting estimate of the contract rather than the accounting method. This was substantiated by reviewing the four primary conditions that must be present to use the percentage-of-completion method: total costs are reasonable dependable estimates; the enforceable rights regarding goods and services to be provided are clearly specified; the buyer is expected to satisfy all obligations; and the contractor is expected to perform to the buyer’s expectations (ASC-605-35-25-57). For further clarification or questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

CASE SUMMARYPROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging that the contract for the construction and sale of a home that was at issue in this case was void, invalid, and unenforceable. Plaintiff also alleged that he was entitled to rescission and cancellation of the same contract. Defendants filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the contract of sale. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and demurred to defendants ' counterclaim.

Long projects of duration 2-3 years. Never check the erosion has gone significantly worse than that in original contract.

At 30 June 2014, the balance of the revaluation surplus is $400 000, of which $300 000 relates to the factory land and $100 000 to the buildings. On this same date, independent valuations of the land and building are obtained. In relation to the above assets, the assessed fair values at 30 June 2014 are:

Termination for Default permits the government to terminate the contract if the contractor fails to deliver within the time defined in the contract, fails to perform as per provisions incorporated in the contract or the contractor performance can potentially lead to failure. Under the T4D clause, the government has the right to complete the work and charge the contractor for the consequential excess costs incurred. However, the government is also likely to suffer substantial economic and time losses. Therefore, the decision to terminate for default must be the result of the CO’s exercise of sound discretion. In the case of Darwin, the default termination was motivated by a desire not to do business with the contractor rather than deficiencies in the contractor’s performance. I do agree with the board’s decision since the CO knew that Darwin had performed more than half of the work in an acceptable manner and there was no evidence to suggest that Darwin was financially unable to complete the remainder of the work.

Even with prior planning uncertainties will happen. In this case, the contractor decided to outsource the concreted for the paid. The problem is that the concrete was not with codes and had to be removed and repoured. This delay caused budget overruns. This goes back to the quality not being measured in the earned value management (EVM) system. The 30 day project turned into 60 days and was ultimately over budget but the difference was paid by the contractor. Even