{"id":894647,"date":"2018-08-02T14:14:30","date_gmt":"2018-08-02T20:14:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=894647"},"modified":"2018-08-02T14:14:30","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T20:14:30","slug":"no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/","title":{"rendered":"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees."},"content":{"rendered":"

Brendan Carter, Esq. | The Dispute Resolver<\/a> | July 28, 2018<\/p>\n

Sauer Incorporated (Sauer) entered into a design-build contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the design and construction of the Operational Readiness Training Complex at Fort Hunter Ligget, California.\u00a0\u00a0Sauer then executed a subcontract with Agate Steel, Inc. (Agate) for the structural steel (install only) scope of work. The subcontract required that Agate provide all labor, materials, equipment, and tools required to complete the \u2018Structural and Miscellaneous Steel (Erection)\u2019 scope of work.\u00a0\u00a0The subcontract also contained a \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause that provided Agate\u2019s sole remedy for a delay on the project was a commensurate extension of time and Agate waived any rights to financial claims based upon delay.<\/p>\n

The scope of work required Sauer to provide structural steel to Agate in accordance with the plans and specification through Sauer\u2019s fabricator. Additionally, the contract specifically called for steel stairs to be delivered fully assembled and ready for final install by Agate.\u00a0The subcontract also contained references to the project schedule with a defined duration of 121 days for Agate\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

During the execution of the work, Agate experienced numerous delays and disruptions claiming\u00a0significant revisions to\u00a0the contract drawings resulted in changes to the steel fabrication and erection sequences; that Sauer\u2019s fabricator delivered hundreds of non-conforming pieces of steel to the project which then required field modifications; the contract documents underrepresented the amount of steel clips required for the work by 4,000 pieces; and the steel stairs were delivered in pieces which the required labor intensive field fabrication.\u00a0\u00a0As a result of these delays, Agate\u2019s installation duration ultimately was 422 days, a 301-day delay.<\/p>\n

As a result, Agate filed suit against Sauer for: 1) breach for outstanding contract balances plus unpaid change orders in the amount $649,739; 2) breach for delay and disruption in the amount of $698,253 in extended field & office overhead plus attorney\u2019s fees; 3) unjust enrichment for the reasonable value of materials it had not been paid for; and 4) breach of good faith and fair dealings for lost revenues, profits and opportunities for the extended duration it was onsite.\u00a0\u00a0Sauer moved to dismiss the second, third and fourth claims.<\/p>\n

The Court began its analysis of Agate\u2019s claim for delay and disruption by identifying the subcontract did include a valid ‘no damages for delay’ clause as allowed in federal contracting.\u00a0\u00a0Agate argued that the kind of delay it experienced throughout the project was not within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was formed, and the \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause should not be enforceable. The Court pointed to Sauer\u2019s inability to properly schedule trades, unwillingness to process change orders, and numerous design changes as detriments to Agate\u2019s efficient work flow and found them as a plausible basis to seek relief for a delay and disruption claim.<\/p>\n

The Court also addressed Agate\u2019s argument that the \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause is unenforceable because through its actions, Sauer abandoned the subcontract.\u00a0\u00a0Agate points to California case law that states, \u201c[P]rivate parties may impliedly abandon a contract when they fail to follow change order procedures and when the final product differs substantially from the original.”\u00a0Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks<\/em>, 27 Cal. 4th 228 (2002).<\/p>\n

In its review of whether the contract was abandoned, the Court again pointed to the facts that the subcontract stipulated Sauer would furnish complete and correct steel, but numerous field modifications were required due to design changes and incorrectly fabricated materials.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further acknowledged the 4,000 steel clips installed not depicted in the contract documents, stairs pieces that arrived loose and required field assembly contrary to the subcontract, and Sauer not adhering to the contractual process for change order work.\u00a0\u00a0Agate alleged that those “foregoing, cardinal changes to the Erection Subcontract and material departures from the reasonable expectations of the Parties, at the formation of the Erection Subcontract, constitute abandonment of the Erection Subcontract.”<\/p>\n

The Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and the \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable.\u00a0\u00a0The Court allowed the claims to proceed beyond the pleading state without a determination of damages.<\/p>\n

Based upon the finding that the subcontract was abandoned, the court then found Agate\u2019s third claim of unjust enrichment in quasi-contract could precede because no contract existed between the parties and relief could be sought in equity.<\/p>\n

The fourth claim of breach of good faith and fair dealings was dismissed.<\/p>\n

Rai Indus. Fabricators, LLC v. Fed. Ins. Co. (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2018)<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Brendan Carter, Esq. | The Dispute Resolver | July 28, 2018 Sauer Incorporated (Sauer) entered into a design-build contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the design and construction of the Operational Readiness Training Complex at Fort Hunter Ligget, California.\u00a0\u00a0Sauer then executed a subcontract with Agate Steel, Inc. (Agate) for the structural steel… Continue reading No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[9895,72,8998],"class_list":["post-894647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-construction-contracts","tag-advise-consult","tag-construction-contracts-2","tag-no-damages-for-delays","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nNo Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees.\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\"},\"wordCount\":789,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"construction contracts\",\"No Damages For Delays\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Construction Contracts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\",\"name\":\"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00\",\"description\":\"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees.","datePublished":"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/"},"wordCount":789,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","construction contracts","No Damages For Delays"],"articleSection":["Construction Contracts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/","name":"No Damages for Delay Clause? How About Damages for a Cardinal Change? Steel Erector Claims its 301 Day Delay Constitutes an Abandonment of the Subcontract and CA Fed Court Agrees. - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-08-02T20:14:30+00:00","description":"Court found the totality of these allegations was sufficient to show the contract had been abandoned and \u2018no damages for delay\u2019 clause was not enforceable","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/no-damages-delay-clause-damages-cardinal-change-steel-erector-claims-301-day-delay-constitutes-abandonment-subcontract-ca-fed-court-agrees\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3KJN","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=894647"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":894648,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/894647\/revisions\/894648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=894647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=894647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=894647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}