A general contractor is hired by a principal to erect an large art exhibit.
The gen'l contr. hires subcontractors to build the exhibit and acquire rented and loaned items.
The gen'l contractor is paid an override from the principal on what is charged by the subcontr. to do the work.
The principal paid the gen'l cont. and then the gen'l paid the subcont..
The principal then decides to extend the display period beyond what was originally contracted for with the gen'l, but does so w/out going through the gen'l.
The principal goes DIRECTLY to the subcont. doing an "end run" around the gen'l. contr.
If the gen'l would have known the display period would have included this additional time, the original cost to the principal would have been greater thus allowing the gen'l a larger fee.
Does the gen'l have a cause of action against the principal for the lost fee?
Is there case law to support the gen'l's claim?
2007-09-19 12:51:51 · 4 answers · asked by atlasmv 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The extra work amounts to a new contract. The general is not entitled to any mark-ups for additional work done outside the original scope.
It seems to me like the general wants to get paid for doing nothing.
2007-09-19 12:58:41 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
General Contractor is responsible for making sure the sub contractors provide the services needed to complete a project. Sub-contractors can be dry wall contractor, electricians, tile contractor, flooring contractor... A General contractor might have these sub-contractors as part of his staff and does not need to hire an outside contractor, but becase the changes in the demand of work, a general contractor will only hire a subcontractor as needed. Therefore subcontractor can do work for other general contractors
2016-05-18 22:50:16 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think that he has a claim. They fulfilled their contract with him. Then, they pursued further services from the subs. If they had cancelled the existing contract, then he would have a case, but I do not think so in this case.
2007-09-19 12:59:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as the sub has fullfilled his contract with the general
2007-09-25 21:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by rgf1665 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋