Autry, Hall & Cook attorney David Cook contributed an article to the Atlanta Bar Construction Law Section. The article addresses a recent case that involved several… Read More »Atlanta Bar Construction Newsletter Article
Wrongful Termination and the Right to Cure: The Subcontractor’s Perspective In a recent case, a subcontractor asserted a wrongful-termination claim against a contractor when it… Read More »Wrongful Termination and the Right to Cure
In a prior post, we discussed a Georgia Supreme Court opinion interpreting Atlanta’s OCIP policy. The case at issue was remanded to the Georgia Court… Read More »Failure to Procure Contractually Required Insurance Can Be Disastrous
A prior post covered an appellate decision addressing whether a Georgia municipality may be held liable under quantum meruit for ultra vires acts of its agents. That opinion generated a great deal of uncertainty because, contrary to prior cases, it seemed to open the door to municipal liability for unauthorized contracts. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Georgia resolved that uncertainty by reversing the appellate opinion in favor of the municipality. Read More »Supreme Court Reverses Ruling on Quantum Meruit Claims Against Municipality
Many construction-related contracts contain a contractual period of limitations — a contract term that establishes a period of time during which a party must file a claim against the other party (“limitations provision”). Such a contractual provision precludes an aggrieved party from filing a lawsuit after the period expires. They are generally enforceable in Georgia.
In Carrier Corp. v. Rollins, Inc., the Court of Appeals of Georgia interpreted a limitations provision contained in a $2 million contract for installation of an HVAC system at the owner’s headquarters. The owner filed suit alleging that the HVAC system installed by the contractor never functioned properly. Read More »Contractual Limitations Period Must Have Clearly Identifiable Starting Point
AHC attorney David R. Cook recently authored an article in the Facilities Engineering Journal regarding the importance of strong contracts in the procurement of construction… Read More »Proper Contracts Can Mitigate Key Risks in the Procurement of Facility-Related Construction Services
Sometimes construction claimants and their attorneys need to think outside the box in their efforts to recover payment for work. There are many situations in which claimants adequately prove they are entitled to recover, but for one reason or another they are not made whole. For instance, the counterparty may become insolvent or dissolved, or a mere breach-of-contract action is inadequate to recover for all losses. In these situations, claimants must find alternative claims for recovery and other pockets from which to recover. Read More »The Creative-But-High Standard of “Alternative” Claims in Construction Disputes
In a previous AHC Construction Law Update, we discussed a Court of Appeals opinion that held a school district’s construction contract was not void because it did not violate constitutional or statutory prohibitions against multi-year contracts. The Supreme Court of Georgia recently vacated the part of that opinion that has created confusion among public owners’ counsel. Read More »Local Government’s Multi-Year Contract Held Valid in Supreme Court Opinion
At some point, a county’s board or administrators may be faced with complaints from the community about payments made to a private entity. Members of the community (or competitors of the payee) may raise a number of complaints, including:
• payments were made to a friend of a commissioner,
• payments were made without a valid contract,
• the contract was not properly recorded,
• the contract was not effectively approved, or
• the county failed to comply with public works bidding laws.Read More »Recovery of County’s Ultra Vires Payments
The Georgia Supreme Court recently affirmed a trial court’s order requiring a city to pay a developer for the construction of a sewage pump station. The case involves issues of mandamus and the enforcement of ordinances.Read More »Supreme Court Upholds Mandamus Order Requiring City to Pay Developer For Construction of Pump Station
Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP provides clients a broad variety of high quality legal services while retaining the personal touch and more economical rates of a small firm.
North Atlanta Office
(Vinings)
3330 Cumberland Boulevard
Suite 185
Atlanta, GA 30339
Northeast Atlanta Office
(Tucker)
100 Crescent Centre Parkway
Suite 625
Tucker, GA 30084
Copyright 2020 Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Disclaimer
The text and materials on the Autry, Hall & Cook internet site are for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. This internet site is not intended to create, and receipt of the information on this site does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Autry, Hall & Cook. You should not act upon the information contained in this internet site without seeking the advice of an attorney. Please do not send us any confidential information until after you have received from us a written statement that we have agreed to perform the legal services you requested.
Hosting by Southern Web