The Subcontract Contingent Payment Clause: How Does It Affect The Construction Industry?

more+
less-

Originally published in Florida Bar Journal on February 13, 2013.

A contingent payment clause in a subcontract is the clause that provides that the subcontractor assumes the risk of owner nonpayment. Such clauses are favored by contractors for the ostensible purpose of managing the risk of owner nonpayment. Subcontractors are often faced with accepting the risk of owner nonpayment in a contingent payment clause when they can least afford to accept that risk. One issue about which there is no disagreement is that nonpayment for construction work WILL create practical problems regardless of legal issues. As a practical matter due to lack of capitalization, a smaller subcontractor may not have a real choice about slowing down or stopping work in the face of nonpayment, whether or not there is a legal right to get paid.

Which Clause? -

Florida has held that the issue of whether subcontract language communicates assumption of the risk of owner nonpayment may be considered as an issue of law (contract interpretation). Any ambiguity in the payment language will preclude enforcement of the clause as creating a contingent payment obligation and leave it as a time of payment clause, which requires payment to the subcontractor within a “reasonable time” in order to allow the contractor some time to receive payment from the owner. Courts are not clear on any particular period being a reasonable time for payment. The “reasonable time” for postponing payment has been defined to be the time within which the general contractor is actively pursuing collection, and while there remains a reasonable likelihood that the general contractor will actually collect the payment due from the owner. Two Florida courts have been the most beneficent to the subcontractor with respect to when payment is due under a time of payment clause. Florida courts have said a) A reasonable time occurred as of the writing of the appellate opinion, but was still a fact issue, and b) 90 days from completion of the work was a reasonable time (however the reasonable time of 90 days was agreed between the parties in that case).

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© JAMS | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×
×