Recently I have worked on a couple of matters for contractors who were expecting unlimited access to their construction site, only to find the DOT had given the prime access point to an adjacent contractor. The DOTs defended their actions based on their standard specifications requiring "coordination and cooperation" of the contractors. What have the courts done in these situations? They look both at the contract language and at implied duties. It is settled law that every contract contains an implied obligation that neither party will do anything to prevent, hinder or delay performance. An owner, including a DOT, is said to have violated the implied obligations where its action or inaction delays performance of the project, thus increasing costs.
展开▼
