cee167-fa07-mt2-Ibbs-soln - CE167 Engineering Project...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 CE167: Engineering Project Management Fall 2007 Professor William Ibbs MIDTERM 2 Date: November 15, 2007 Question 1 [8 points] An owner and a contractor have a dispute on the specifications of the plumbing materials in the current contract. The contract does not specify the materials required. The dispute arises when the owner requests that the contractor follow specifications used in previous and similar contracts between them. The contractor insists on following the practices of the industry. These two are at odds with each other. As a mediator of this case what would you advise? Why? I would support the owner [2 points]. The contractor must follow specifications used in the previous and similar contracts. The relative importance of the manifestations of intent states that the course of dealing will take precedence over the customs and trade practices of the industry [5 points]. The course of dealing means how the parties have previously dealt with each other prior to entering into the current contract [1 point] (See pages B 297 and B 299). Question 2 [8 points] A general contractor drafted and signed a subcontract with a subcontractor for roofing work. Industry trade practices rely on two different roofing specifications from two different manufacturers, namely Bird and Johns-Manville. The roofing work is more expensive under the Bird specifications. Although the subcontract references the roofing specifications, nowhere in the document is it stated which set of specifications is intended. The dispute arises when the general contractor withholds payment from the subcontractor, alleging that the installed roof did not comply with the Bird specifications. The subcontractor used the Johns-Manville specifications. This dispute becomes a lawsuit and goes to court. What would you expect the court to decide? Why? I would expect the court to favor the subcontractor [3 points]. The doctrine of contra proferentem requires that the meaning of an ambiguous contract provision be construed against the drafter – the general contractor in this case [5 points]. Question 3 [8 points]
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 12/01/2011 for the course CE 13972 taught by Professor Chow during the Spring '09 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 5

cee167-fa07-mt2-Ibbs-soln - CE167 Engineering Project...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online