N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News

Latest from N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’H_AfyZozTIFqcrWIgmHxFg’,sig:’zN2noBYgMbJWTKt_PKVDSzJ8F8DBjXsQ5SkH7TyUCjw=’,w:’416px’,h:’416px’,items:’849250332′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
Hi folks!  As the kids would say, “it’s been a minute.”  But I’m back on the blogging beat and eager to share new construction law content with you in the weeks and months ahead.
While perusing the Fall 2018 newsletter issued by the North Carolina Licensing

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’llzpfU0wQL9pWb43YlX35Q’,sig:’LJ5XcUv9oLD0sXZKf5p_NAsw2EkA53NqzL9Dq6teQ_w=’,w:’509px’,h:’339px’,items:’78713950′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
Last week, I blogged about the Southeast Caissons, LLC v. Choate Construction Company case, in which the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a general contractor could not enforce a forum selection clause in a subcontract that was never signed.
And now, the rest of

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’87MWSLc-Q4pPu1LVOYXyZQ’,sig:’CVzvzGe3XqZfQ56Os1P6vR5zIsj284tp5r5CG-nPyq0=’,w:’414px’,h:’414px’,items:’510902385′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
In order for an agreement to constitute a valid contract that courts or arbitrators will enforce, both parties to the agreement must mutually assent to all of the terms of the deal.  The fancy Latin term for this mutuality requirement is “aggregatio mentium;” we Americans call

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’swY1G-0iQwBqZswFi5xEdw’,sig:’PWBByZ_GJJTmgdtoGob7spU1MdWc0yll8CoiLnKXRWc=’,w:’676px’,h:’253px’,items:’114267221′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
Wednesday’s Powerball drawing promises the winner a $1.3 $1.5 billion (yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”) jackpot.  Unfortunately, your odds of picking the winning numbers are about 1 in 292 million, or roughly the same odds as an architect acknowledging a deficiency in construction plans

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’m8_j0sfXTi1TA_y1zb2Xeg’,sig:’wvPTpkPbtZSWuEcuqj7cgaF6hUkVrDrd4eby6lfCxHk=’,w:’507px’,h:’338px’,items:’123239199′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
It’s an honor to be nominated for two prestigious construction industry blog awards this winter, and I humbly ask for your vote in each competition.
For the third year in a row, N.C. Construction Law, Policy & News has been nominated for Construction Marketing Ideas’ annual

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’Dw3tl1z8Swhs9LRVLdKufw’,sig:’LPbjxjmJbrP4jNk3krJeUDqiNKLqzOKkDivnpTHYwWM=’,w:’507px’,h:’338px’,items:’167413847′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
As I noted last November, there’s a growing concern among construction industry stakeholders and others that arbitration too often fails to serve its intended purpose as a speedy, less costly and more streamlined alternative to civil litigation.  This rising chorus has complained that pre-hearing discovery is

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:’H14n2zA6TJx1S5jS6o2nSA’,sig:’yKRKGi9IvyG3sIq9ZWlxSPSsck0TJ_uX03Y74C-APPw=’,w:’507px’,h:’338px’,items:’114837605′,caption: false ,tld:’com’,is360: false })});
An unpublished decision from the North Carolina Court of Appeals yesterday demonstrates how important it is to not only read, but also to fully understand, legally binding documents before signing them.

In Pattison Outdoor Advertising, LP v. Elevator Channel, Inc., Defendant agreed to build and