We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

logo
  • Engineers & Specifiers
  • Contractors & Installers
  • Wholesalers & Distributors
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Free Subscription
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
  • PRODUCTS
    • Bath & Kitchen
    • Fire Protection
    • HVAC
    • Hydronics/Radiant
    • Plumbing
    • PVF
    • Tools
  • PROJECTS
    • Commercial
    • Green Building
    • MRO/Retrofit
    • Remodeling
    • Residential
  • HOW TO
    • Design
    • Fire Protection
    • Legal Matters
    • Management
  • BUSINESS
    • Buying Groups
    • Technology
    • Associations
  • CODES & STANDARDS
    • ANSI
    • ASHRAE
    • ASSE
    • Regulations
    • Green Building
    • IAPMO
    • ICC
    • NFPA
  • RESOURCES
    • Media Kit
    • Advertise
    • Contact Us
    • Classifieds
    • Digital Editions
    • Behind the Wall
    • Webinars
    • AHR Live 2023
  • PODCASTS
  • DIGITAL EDITIONS
Home » Be Wary of the Waiver
Legal Pipeline

Be Wary of the Waiver

The importance of understanding cardinal change and consequential damage provisions in a subcontract.

October 5, 2018
Steven Nudelman
No Comments
pe10_18_nudelman

“Freedom of contract” is an important concept, affecting architects and engineering subconsultants as well as general contractors and subcontractors. When commercial parties enter into a lawful contract after arms-length negotiations, courts try to respect the terms and conditions of the agreement. Courts may assist the parties by enforcing the agreement but courts are loathe to upend the terms of a negotiated business deal. 

As one Florida court noted, “[C]ourts are ‘powerless to rewrite [a] contract to make it more reasonable or advantageous to one of the parties … or to substitute [their] judgments for that of the parties to the contract in order to relieve one of the parties from the apparent hardship of an improvident bargain.” Underwater Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. Utility Bd. of Key West, 194 So.3d 437, 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) (citation omitted). 

This month’s column looks at two key contracting principles and their effect on freedom of contract: the doctrine of cardinal change and waiver of consequential damages. Both concepts took center stage in the Massachusetts Superior Court case of Turner Construction Company v. MJ Flaherty Company, 34 Mass. L. Rptr. 171, 2017 WL 2218780 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2017).

Background

Turner Construction Co. (“Turner”) was the general contractor for the construction of a 23-story office building in Boston (the “Project”). MF Flaherty Co. (“MJ”), Turner’s HVAC subcontractor, had a $12.5 million subcontract for its work on the Project. After MJ failed to complete its HVAC work, Turner sued MJ to recover the damages that Turner sustained by having to retain a completion subcontractor for the Project. 

This ordinary breach of contract claim gave rise to a more exotic counterclaim by MJ that was the focus of much of the Superior Court’s attention. Specifically, MJ claimed it did not complete its work on the Project as a result of Turner’s failure to pay MJ for the work that it did perform. MJ argued that Turner mismanaged the Project, causing MJ to suffer such significant losses that the company’s overall net worth plummeted by $6.4 million. 

MJ alleged that there were so many change orders issued on the Project that the total contract price jumped by more than 20 percent. While nobody disputed that Turner had an aggressive Project schedule, MJ claimed the scheduling changes and sequencing had an adverse effect on MJ and increased its costs substantially, making it much harder for the HVAC contractor to perform under the contract. Indeed, MJ contended that the Project changes, when considered cumulatively, were of such scope and consequence that they caused a “cardinal change” to its subcontract with Turner.

Waiver of Consequential Damages

Turner moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss MJ’s counterclaims to the extent it sought recovery of consequential damages. Turner relied on a clause in the Turner-MJ subcontract which provided as follows:

“Notwithstanding any term or provision herein to the contrary, [MJ] expressly waives and releases all claims or rights to recover lost profit (except for profit on work actually performed), recovery of overhead (including home office overhead) and any other indirect damages, costs or expenses in any way arising out of or related to the Agreement, including the breach thereof by [Turner], delays, charges, acceleration, loss of efficiency or productivity disruptions and interference with the performance of the work.”

The Superior Court granted Turner’s motion, finding that the damages sought by MJ on its counterclaim were precisely the type of indirect, consequential damages that MJ agreed to waive in its subcontract. Turner Constr., 2017 WL 2218780 at *1. The above clause is a unilateral waiver of consequential damages — a waiver by one party only — as opposed to a mutual waiver of consequential damages — a waiver by both parties to a contract. Regardless, waivers of consequential damages are enforceable as a matter of Massachusetts law and parties to a private, commercial construction contract are free to include them as a term therein. 

“[C]lauses in construction contracts limiting the right to recover consequential damages have long been recognized and enforced as an appropriate means to ‘limit the expense and unpredictability of construction contract litigation.’” Turner Constr., 2017 WL 2218780 at *1 (quoting Costa v. Brait Builders Corp., 463 Mass. 65, 78 n. 22 (2004)). The freedom of contract that allows MJ to waive consequential damages also allows MJ to seek a higher contract price from Turner when the parties initially negotiated their subcontract.

Cardinal Change

MJ attempted to salvage its counterclaim, without success, by invoking the doctrine of cardinal change in support of its claim for damages. “A cardinal change is a ‘substantial deviation that changes the nature of the bargain,’ and an alteration ‘so profound’ as to constitute a material breach of contract.” 1A Philip L. Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Construction Law § 4:13 (2018) (citations omitted). 

The doctrine of cardinal change has its genesis in federal government contracts; however, it has been adopted by a number of states for private construction projects, including Massachusetts. The underlying premise of cardinal change — “that compensation for costs resulting from an abuse of authority under the changes clause [in a contract] should not be limited by the terms of that clause” — applies to private contracts including changes clauses. J.A. Jones Constr. Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 89 P.3d 1009, 1020 (Nev. 2004).

“Under established case law, a cardinal change is a breach. It occurs when the government effects an alteration in the work so drastic that it effectively requires the contractor to perform duties materially different from those originally bargained for.” Allied Materials & Equipment Co. v. United States, 569 F.2d 562, 563-64 (Ct. Cl. 1978).

The court in Turner was able to sidestep the entire cardinal change analysis by relying on the waiver of consequential damages provision in the subcontract. Once the court found this clause enforceable, it also found that it trumped any finding of cardinal change. This is because if there was a cardinal change to the MJ-Turner subcontract, then MJ would only be entitled to recover “the true value of the services performed, i.e., quantum meruit,” not the consequential or indirect damages MJ was seeking in its counterclaims. 

MJ failed to submit any legal authority to support the recovery of consequential damages as a result of cardinal change. The cases submitted by MJ “apply traditional concepts of equitable relief to situations in which a contract should be set aside because the work performed was different than the work bargained for under the contract. In each case, the court concludes that the party performing the work should be given the opportunity to recover the fair value of its labors. The same concepts apply under Massachusetts law.” Turner Constr., 2017 WL 2218780 at *4

The Turner case is instructive because it emphasizes the power and purpose of the waiver of consequential damages clause in a contract, be it for construction or professional services. In either case, it is a risk-shifting provision that has value to both parties to the contract and it should be negotiated. To the extent possible, the contract price should reflect this value. 

Since the contracting parties often do not have equal bargaining position, the party with the weaker position is left with a business decision: Do I accept the project with the clause or do I walk away? This is not an easy decision. Moreover, to the extent the clause is accepted, the parties need to understand the precise limitation on prospective damages. If there is an avalanche of unforeseen changes to the contract scope, resulting in consequential damages, then the doctrine of cardinal change is not the answer, according to the Turner case. 

Under these circumstances, at best, the aggrieved party that can prove cardinal change will be able to collect the fair and reasonable value of the work performed — often not enough to be made whole and avoid being “buried underneath the avalanche.”

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Nothing in this article should be considered legal advice or an offer to perform services. The application and impact of laws may vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Do not act upon any information provided in this article, including choosing an attorney, without independent investigation or legal representation. The opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of his firm.

Engineers & Specifiers Legal
  • Related Articles

    The Wholesaler Magazine 2019 PVF Hall of Fame Award Winner, Ernie Coutermarsh, to be Honored at PVF Roundtable Event

    Pipelines continue to be one of the safest ways to transport energy, says new report?

    CMS Publishes Categorical Waiver for Corrugated Medical Tubing

  • Related Products

    The Wholesaler

    Directory Listing - Premium

  • Related Events

    The Water Demand Calculator: Updating the Hunter's Curve Summit

    DDI System "Key Strategies for Solving the eCommerce & ERP Disconnect" Webinar

Nudelman web
Steven Nudelman

Colorado Construction Defects Case Benefits Subcontractors, too!

More from this author
You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Most Popular

  • Chicago Plumber’s Union Dyes Chicago River Green for St. Patrick’s Day 2023

  • Everything You Wanted to Know About Orangeburg Pipe (But Were Afraid To Ask)

  • Vote Now! Plumbing Design of the Year: A Readers’ Choice Award

  • The Basis for Most Plumbing Codes

Featured Video

Caleffi video thumb

The Gold Standard: Separation with NO Compromise

Industry Events

  • 26Mar

    MCAA 2023 Annual Convention

    Phoenix, AZ
  • 29Mar

    2023 SFPE European Conference & Expo

    Berlin ,
  • 11Apr

    ASA ELEVATE2023

    Charleston, SC
More Events

Subscribe to our newsletters & stay updated

Subscribe & Learn More

  • Tw03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Pe03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Phc03 2023 cover
    Learn More
  • Es 2022
    Learn More
Subscribe

More from PHCP Pros

  • Editorial Team
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • Advertise

Follow Us

© 2023 All Rights Reserved

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development | ePublishing