Chapter 21
The text to this point has dealt with the major project participants: owner,
design professional, and prime constructor (whether prime contractor, CM or
D/builder). Subcontractors differ from these participants in 2 major aspects:
1. As a general rule, they are the economically weakest actor.
2. They have no contractual connection to the source of project funding.
Notwithstanding the above (especially the first aspect), the Drennan rule
(Section 21.3B) favors the prime contractor. Do rules against bid shopping and
peddling even things out? How about ethical codes of conduct? Refer the
students to Rule II of the Constructor Code of Conduct (Section 13.4).
Each remedy has its limitations, of course. Mechanics’ liens are complex and
have a variety of deadlines and notices; failure to strictly comply may result in
loss of the right. Note the decision of Stokes v. Millen Roofing Co. in Section 21.7
(ruling that unlicensed contractors may not use the mechanics’ liens). This case
was earlier discussed in Section 8.6B.
Section 21.11 shows the desperation of unpaid subcontractors, seeking
recovery from the owner under a theory of unjust enrichment (restitution) in the
event a statutory remedy fails.
Answers to Chapter Questions
1.) What is the principal reason for a “flow–through” or conduit clause?
2.) What elements are needed to satisfy the doctrine of promissory estoppel?