Posts Tagged ‘Pay When Paid’

Problems Can Arise When Using One Contract in Multiple States

Bowie & Jenson’s Construction Law Forum blog just posted about a case out of the U.S. Fourth Circuit that demonstrates problems that may arise when a contractor uses one form contract in two different states.  In the 4th Circuit case discussed, Universal Concrete Products v Turner Construction Company, Maryland and Virginia were the bordering states involved, and the legal issue related to a “pay when paid” provision.

In Virginia, “pay when paid” provisions conditions any payment to a subcontractor on the general contractor receiving payment from the owner.   If the general contractor never receives payment, the general contractor never needs to pay the subcontractor.

In Maryland, however, the “pay when paid” provision is not so strong.   Maryland distinguishes “pay when paid” clauses from “pay if paid” clauses, considering the first type of provision one requiring payment to the subcontractor within a “reasonable time” after work is concluded, and the second type of provision requiring payment only if and after payment is received from the owner.

The subtle difference in the law was a big difference to the general contractor, who was likely using the same contract in both Maryland and Virginia.

While we don’t practice in Maryland and Virginia, the problem here isn’t isolated to those two states.    This problem can arise between any two bordering states.

Our clients in Washington and Oregon frequently work in each other’s state.  Our clients in Louisiana frequently work in Mississippi or Texas.   While “business” between the two states may feel seamless to the business owners, the laws can be drastically different.

Posted in:     Construction Contracts  /  Tags: , , , ,   /   2 Comments

Great Resources for Mississippi Construction Law

This afternoon, I was reading a post on Bowie & Jenson’s Construction Law Forum blog about problems that may arise when using the same subcontract in more than one state. The case discussed in the blog post regarding the differences in interpretation of a pay when paid clause in Maryland and Virginia. While we don’t practice in either of those states, we very frequently encounter clients who are working across borders.

When it comes to Louisiana construction companies, they are frequently working in Mississippi.

Out of curiosity, I performed a little research on the treatment of pay when paid clauses in Mississippi to compare it with Louisiana’s treatment of the same. Immediately I went to my two favorite resources for Mississippi Construction Law, and figured our readers could benefit from these two resources and there’s no reason to keep them a secret. So here goes:

Robert Wise
While Robert doesn’t run a construction law blog, he has a bunch of great published articles available for download on his website. Take some of these as examples:

  • Mississippi Construction Lien, Bond, Stop Notice, Open Account & Contractor Prompt Payment Claims (pdf)
  • Mississippi Construction Bid Mistakes (pdf)
  • Mississippi Construction Supplier’s Collection Law Tool Kit (pdf)

Construction Law Toolbox Blog
The Construction Law Toolbox blog is published by Mississippi law firm Robinson, Biggs, Ingram, Solop & Farris, PLLC. The blog provides consistent quality posts about construction law issues that affect those performing construction work in Mississippi. Here are some example posts:

  • Do you have coverage under your commercial general liability policy for defective subcontractor construction? (link)
  • He who hesitates is lost – Protecting Payment Rights in Mississippi (link)
  • Can I Rely on my Subcontractor’s Certificate of Insurance? (link)

Oh, and the result of my pay when paid clause research, thanks to help from Mr. Wise is this:

In Louisiana, “pay when paid” requires payment within a reasonable time, regardless of whether payment was ever received from the property owner. “Pay if paid” clauses, on the other hand, makes payment from the owner an absolute condition precent to payment further down the contracting chain.

In Mississippi, it doesn’t seem to matter how it’s written: pay if paid, pay when paid, etc. The result is the same: payment is due within a reasonable time, regardless of whether payment was ever received from the property owner.

This article was originally posted on Wolfe Law Group’s topic-specific Louisiana Construction Law Blog.

Posted in:     Around The Web, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , , , , ,   /   Leave a comment

Payment Provisions in Construction Contracts – Louisiana Law

Background on Payment Provisions & What is a “Pay When Paid” Clause

While it’s common practice in the construction industry to provide for partial payments from the contractor to subcontractor as work progresses, in Louisiana, unless the contract specifies otherwise, payment from the general contractor to the subcontractor is not actually due until the project is completed. See LA CC Art. 2550; See also Sacco v. Koepp, 169 La. 789, 793-94 (1930).

Therefore, if such progress payments are desired, it’s important to have a clause clearly providing for these payments in the contract.

A common contract provision in many contractor-subcontractor agreements provides that progress payments are not payable to a subcontractor until the owner pays the corresponding amount to the general contractor. These contract provisions typically come in two varieties, and are commonly referred to as “pay when paid” and “pay if paid” clauses.

“Pay when paid” and “Pay if paid” clauses are designed to shift the burden of owner non-payment from the contractor to its sub-contractors and suppliers. Accordingly, both provisions can be very onerous for the subcontractor – oftentimes preventing payments to a sub or supplier when the Owner is in an unrelated dispute with the general contractor, or merely becomes financially unable to make payments under the contract.

Enforceability of “Pay When Paid” Provisions

“Pay when Paid” provisions and other conditional payment provisions are not favored in courts, and therefore, it’s imperative to carefully draft and review any such provisions in the construction contract.

Hostility towards these types of provisions are fueled by subcontractors and their trade organizations.

Courts in some parts of the country have even gone so far as to call such provisions against public policy and unenforceable. See Capitol Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Mega Construction Co., 58 Cal App 4th 1049 (2d Dist. 1997). Legislatures in a number of states have considered such provisions as impermissible waivers of the subcontractor’s constitutionally protected mechanics’ lien rights.

In Louisiana, properly drafted “Pay when Paid” provisions are enforceable, but the wording must be clear and unambiguous.

However, even with an enforceable conditional payment provision, Louisiana courts still require payment to the subcontractor within a “reasonable period of time,” thereby watering down the effect of the provision. See Southern States Masonry, Inc. v. J.A. Jones Contr. Co., 507 So.2d 198 (La. 1987). Through this Southern States decision, and similar decisions, the courts re-shift the risk of non-payment back upon the general contractor.

If the parties truly intend for the subcontractor to bear the risk of non-payment, or if payment from the owner is not reasonably certain, this intent should be clearly expressed in the construction contract. In these situations, the contract should have a “Pay if Paid” provision instead of a “Pay when Paid” provision. See C. Bel for Awnings, Inc. v. Blaine-Hays Constr. Co., 532 So.2d 830 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1988).

“Pay When Paid” versus “Pay If Paid”

Although only separated by one word, legally the two provisions are drastically different.

Pay when Paid

This common payment provision stipulates that a general contractor is legally obligated to pay a subcontractor only when it receives a corresponding payment from the owner. As discussed above, however, most courts view such a clause as a timing provision and not the basis for nonpayment.

Accordingly, if payment is never received from an owner, under a “Pay when Paid” payment provision, the general contractor must still make payment to a sub or supplier within a “reasonable time.”

Pay If Paid

“Pay if paid” clauses are more specific than their “pay when paid” counterparts. Unlike the “pay when paid” clause, oftentimes considered a timing provision, the “pay if paid” clause more clearly expresses the parties’ intention to shift the credit risk of owner nonpayment down through the contracting ranks.

Accordingly, payment to the subcontractor is more likely to be contingent on the general receiving payment from the owner under a contract with a “pay if paid” provision than a “pay when paid” provision.

Conclusion

Deciding when payments are due a subcontractor can sometimes lead to long and complicated legal disputes. As such, it’s very important for the parties to clearly express their intent when contracting.

The Wolfe Law Group is experienced in drafting and reviewing construction contracts to clearly reflect the intent of the parties. Contact us today to learn more about how the Wolfe Law Group can be your company’s new legal department.

Posted in:     Construction Contracts, Payment Requirements  /  Tags: , ,   /   1 Comment