Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagesattorneystatutegood faithliquidated damages

contractdamagesattorneystatutetrialliquidated damages

Related Cases

Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. v. Lewiston DMEP IX, LLC, 222 A.3d 613, 2019 ME 175

Facts

In 2014, GBT entered into a contract with F&W to construct five retail buildings in Maine. The contract specified substantial completion dates, and if these were not met, F&W would owe GBT liquidated damages. Due to various delays, including harsh weather and GBT's own actions, none of the projects were completed on time. GBT acknowledged extensions verbally but did not formally issue change orders. F&W continued work despite GBT halting payments, leading to the legal dispute.

In 2014, GBT, a commercial real estate developer based in Tennessee, entered into a contract with F&W, a general contractor based in Ohio, for F&W to construct five retail-store buildings in Maine.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether GBT was equitably estopped from claiming liquidated damages against F&W and whether F&W was entitled to remedies under Maine's prompt payment statutes.

GBT asserts that the trial court erred in three of its determinations: that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and waiver barred its claims against F&W for liquidated damages; that F&W was entitled to prompt payment remedies; and that the terms of the parties' contract allowed F&W to recover attorney fees and costs.

Rule

The court applied the principles of equitable estoppel, which prevents a party from asserting a claim if another party has relied on their misleading conduct or silence. Additionally, the court interpreted Maine's prompt payment statutes regarding the obligations of owners to pay contractors.

Equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense predicated on the principle that '[o]ne who has induced another to believe what is untrue may not later assert the truth.'

Analysis

The court found that GBT's misleading statements and conduct led F&W to reasonably believe that GBT had agreed to extend the substantial completion dates, thus barring GBT from claiming liquidated damages. The court also determined that GBT's withholding of payments was not justified under the prompt payment statutes, as it failed to establish a good faith basis for the nonpayment.

The court's decision in this case was based on a combination of all three forms of misrepresentations—statements, conduct, and silence—and each element of the court's analysis, described below, was supported by the record and consistent with the law.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of F&W regarding GBT's counterclaims for liquidated damages based on equitable estoppel. It also affirmed the award of prompt payment remedies but vacated the portion awarding attorney fees under the contract, remanding for further proceedings.

We therefore affirm, in full, the judgment in F&W's favor on GBT's counterclaims for liquidated damages.

Who won?

Fortney & Weygandt, Inc. prevailed in the case due to the court's finding of equitable estoppel, which barred GBT from claiming liquidated damages, and the determination that GBT had wrongfully withheld payments.

F&W was entitled to penalties, interest, and attorney fees, all pursuant to the prompt payment statutes.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

McCowen v. Pew, 18 Cal.App. 482, 123 P. 354

Pingley v. Brunson, 272 S.C. 421, 252 S.E.2d 560

Holbrook v. Shelter Ins. Co., 186 Fed.Appx. 618, 2006 WL 1792514, 2006 Fed.App. 0446N

Hayes v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 12 F.4th 1186

Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University, 227 F.3d 133, 147 Ed. Law Rep. 485, 55 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1028