Posts

Showing posts from October, 2010

Litigation-I Win, You Lose vs. Mediation-Win/Win

Image
  Litigation is a zero-sum game.  It destroys relationships and fosters enmity between the parties.  Parties rarely walk away happy.  Even if they win, the expense of litigation is enormous, and collecting on judgments is difficult. Disputes ultimately resolve, but the focus on winning at any cost can lead to prolonged legal battles.  Living with a lawsuit causes ongoing stress, which can distract you from your business and even have an effect on your health. In a courtroom, the final decision lies with a judge or jury who may not fully grasp the complexities of the case. Parties relinquish control over the outcome, potentially leaving them dissatisfied with the final judgment. Mediation has the opposite effect.   Rather than polarizing people, it enables the parties to attack the issues and not each other.     The process promotes open communication, collaboration and problem-solving, which enables parties to actively participate in crafting mutually beneficial solutions.   It res

The Massachusetts Prompt Pay Law

The new MA Prompt Pay Law goes into effect on November 8, 2010.  It applies to construction projects of >$3,000,000.00 and effectively eliminates the use of "pay when paid" clauses for these projects. The law details the required payment schedules for General Contractors to Subcontractors to their subcontractors and so on.  There is a nice write-up about it at Massachusetts Real Estate blog:   http://www.massrealestatelawblog.com/massachusetts-construction-prompt-pay-law-passed/ Unfortunately it does not apply to most residential construction, whereas the prompt pay laws in some other states (such as Rhode Island) do apply.

Should a Contractor Have the Homeowner Test for Lead?

I would like to learn more about the advisability of lead testing.  Homeowners might not want their homes tested for lead, because it becomes public record, and may interfere with the sale of a home or the ability to obtain a mortgage or homeowners insurance.  In addition, I strongly advise contractors not to do the testing themselves.  Let the homeowner pay an independent company to do it.  Otherwise if the GC brings a claim against a lead testing company for a false negative, the company might state that the GC did not use the test kit properly.  If the homeowner does have the house tested, consider refusing to do the work unless the homeowner has lead abatement work done.

Listen to Andrea on NARI Radio Speaking about the RRP Rule

http://freestoneblogs.com/nariradio/2010/10/01/10-1-2010-legal-ramifications-of-lrrp/