{"id":900501,"date":"2022-10-20T14:38:54","date_gmt":"2022-10-20T20:38:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=900501"},"modified":"2022-10-20T14:39:00","modified_gmt":"2022-10-20T20:39:00","slug":"prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/","title":{"rendered":"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While construction projects can get messy, they don\u2019t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it\u2019s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Clark Bros. Case<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0Clark Bros, Inc. v. North Edwards Water District<\/a><\/em>, 77 Cal.App.5th 801 (2022), general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. was awarded over $3 million in damages against a local water district on a water treatment facility project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Project<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The North Edwards Water District serves approximately 220 customers in the Mojave Desert. It has one employee, Dollie Dimples Kostopoulos. Seriously, you can\u2019t make this stuff up. The drinking water it provides to its customers contains three times the legal limit of arsenic, a carcinogen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2010, the State of California funded a study to determine how to remove the excessive levels of arsenic from the District\u2019s water supply. Three companies \u2013 Filtronics, Layne Christensen, and Pureflow \u2013 participated in the study. AECOM Technical Services, Inc., the engineering firm overseeing the study, found that Layne Christenson provided the best filtering system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although Layne Christenson was found to provide the best filtering system, the District insisted that all three companies be allowed to bid on the project, and threatened that if they weren\u2019t given their way the District would scuttle the project and supply arsenic-laden water \u201cforever.\u201d Wow, just wow!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pureflow Single-Source Requirement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For reasons unknown, although Layne Christenson had the least expensive waste treatment system, Filtronics offered the least expensive operation and maintenance over 20 years, and Pureflow had the highest capital costs, the District selected Pureflow. The District\u2019s selection of Pureflow was even more puzzling because Pureflow does not manufacture anything. Rather, everything Pureflow sells is made and installed by others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Pureflow was selected, Pureflow demanded an advance of $600,000, which the State rejected, countering that no payments would be made until at least half of the equipment was delivered to the project site. Pureflow and the State later compromised and the State agreed that Pureflow would be paid for each major piece of equipment when it was manufactured and passed inspection at the manufacturing facility. This agreement was incorporated into the project specifications. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2013, Clark was awarded the bid. Under the terms of the contract, Clark was to complete the project by January 2015. Six days later, Pureflow complained about cash flow problems and demanded that it be paid in advance although the State had earlier rejected that proposal and Pureflow\u2019s quote, which was accepted just two weeks earlier, provided that Pureflow would be paid as equipment was manufactured and passed inspection. The State once again rejected Pureflow\u2019s request for money up-front.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other Problems on the Project<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This, however, was just the beginning of the problems. Although the site was located on mostly vacant land, two power poles and overhead electrical lines ran through the middle of the site, and relocating them was an important first task as they were located right over the area of construction and posed a danger to workers using heavy equipment. It was the District\u2019s responsibility to move the poles and power lines. The poles and power lines were ultimately moved to a private property resulting in a 230 working-day extension because of the District\u2019s delay in moving the power poles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistent with common practice, the contract allowed Clark to use the job site for laydown, staging and construction. However, the District refused to allow Clark\u2019s equipment on site, insisting instead that Clark lease a nearby vacant lot. That lot was owned by James Allen who, by no coincidence, was in a relationship with Kostopoulos. When Clark learned of the relationship it refused to pay Allen who replied that Clark was \u201cpoison\u201d and should \u201cget the hell out of here.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As work began, Clark discovered underground gas lines that were not depicted on the plans. The plans also called for the construction of a second water well located about 20 feet away from an existing water well. However, when the well driller arrived, he refused to construct the new well because it was too close to the existing well and could resulted in a cave in that could have further contaminated the drinking water. These issues caused an additional 85 working-day delay on the project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pureflow Once Again<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the meantime, Pureflow again demanded a cash advance and, in a related move, notified Clark that Pureflow would deliver filter media to the site (triggering a $149K progress payment) although there was no place to put it. The District refused to agree to the early filter media delivery. Pureflow delivered it anyway. And Clark was forced to bear the cost of storing it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clark later asked AECOM to identify which Pureflow-supplied equipment it had inspected. AECOM did not identify any and instead stated that Pureflow was Clark\u2019s problem. When Clark brought this to the attention of the District, the District, like AECOM, stated that Pureflow was Clark\u2019s problem, even though the District had selected Pureflow and negotiated the payment terms with it before Clark even bid on the project. Shortly, thereafter, Pureflow asked Clark for $503K in \u201cworking capital\u201d so that it could \u201cmove forward,\u201d Pureflow\u2019s fourth request for advance payment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now six months into the one-year project, the District directed Clark to \u201cdump\u201d Pureflow. Shortly thereafter, Clark sent a notice of breach of contract to Pureflow, and asked AECOM to identify another filter vendor, noting that Pureflow had already caused a 120 working-day delay on the project. However, three weeks later, the District reversed position and told Clark, \u201c[Y]ou cannot replace Pureflow.\u201d In an email to Kostopoulos, Pureflow\u2019s Vice President, Archie MacDonald, thanked Kostopolous for her \u201ctremendous effort\u201d and stated \u201cEnjoy your weekend and go for a drive in your [Audi] A8. You deserve it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clark\u2019s Termination and Other, Well, Eyebrow Raising Events<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later that month, at a District board meeting, board member Clifford Moyle told the Board that he had consulted with a lawyer who agreed \u201cto write two very strong letters, one to Clark, one to AECOM, and make them know they have to shit or get off the pot\u201d and informed the Board that he told the lawyer to \u201ckick their ass.\u201d The District later terminated Clark although it still had three months left to complete the project. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The District later hired an engineer to determine what needed to be done to complete the project. In an unusual turn of events, the engineer in his report asked: \u201cGiven the very real possibility that in the event of litigation against the district, [Clark] may prevail with regards to various issues it raises[,] . . . [i]s there any desire by [the District] to deescalate the matter and determine if there is any possibility of resolving the existing situation without litigation?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the report was read at a District board meeting, Kostopoulos asked her fellow Board members, \u201cIn other words, do we want to kiss Clark\u2019s ass and take him back.\u201d The answer, was apparently no, and the District fired the consulting engineer. At that same board meeting, Kostopoulos reported that the District\u2019s attorney had \u201cstrongly urge[ed]\u201d it to \u201cimmediately reconsider its position and attempt to resolve the matter with [Clark.]\u201d Kostopoulos called the District\u2019s attorney \u201ca little weasel\u201d who did not have \u201cballs enough to fight this thing.\u201d The District also fired the lawyer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apparently, at that same board meeting, Moyle suggested posting \u201cNo Trespassing\u201d signs to deter Clark from returning to the site and to \u201cshoot\u201d him if he did. Another board member commented, with \u201cbuckshot in their butts,\u201d \u201c[t]hey\u2019ll think twice about coming back.\u201d Like I said, you can\u2019t make this stuff up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lawsuit<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the above, it makes what us lawyers do sound downright boring. As one might expect, Clark filed suit against the District as well as the State for breach of contract. The District in turn filed a cross-complaint against Clark and the surety which issued the performance and payment bonds on the project. Before trial, the State settled with Clark for $2.7 million, and following trial, the jury awarded Clark $3,288,721 in damages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The District appealed<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Appeal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, the District argued that a jury instruction given by the trial court was erroneous. Specifically, the District argued that one of Clark\u2019s contentions at trial was that the District failed to pay Clark within 30 calendar days of receipt of Clark\u2019s pay applications and that the District was therefore liable for interest at the rate of 10% per annum under Public Contract Code section 20104.50.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the District, the Court erroneously instructed the jury that the District was contractually required to pay Clark within 30 calendar days and that this was in error, because Section 20104.50 does not require that local agencies to pay pay applications within 30 calendar days, but rather only that local agencies are subject to interest at the rate of 10% per annum for failing to pay pay applications within 30 calendar days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 4th District Court of Appeal agreed, kind of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Public Contract Code section 20104.50(b), explained the Court, provides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Section 20104.50(b) does not, as the trial court stated in its jury instruction, require that local agencies to pay contractors within 30 days. Rather, explained the Court, Section 20104.50(b) provides only that if a local agency \u201cfails\u201d to pay within 30 days that it \u201cshall pay interest\u201d at the legal rate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, the operative language in section 20104.50, subdivision (b) is that a local agency \u201cwhich fails\u201d to pay within 30 days \u201cshall pay interest\u201d at the legal rate. Giving these words their plain meaning, the statute does not compel payment within 30 days. What it compels is that interest be paid (at the legal rate) when payment is made after 30 days.<\/p>

Of course, a 10 percent penalty for tardy payment is likely a strong incentive for local government to make progress payments within 30 days. But to incentivize payment within 30 days is not the same as to compel it. There may be a number of good reasons why a local agency might take longer than 30 days to pay. In this case, for example, the sheer bureaucracy in having payments approved by AECOM, North Edwards, and the State made payment beyond 30 days not only possible, but a near certainty.<\/p>

Given the frequency with which even a good faith attempt to pay within 30 days may fail, section 20104.60 quite reasonably does not create a breach of contract every time a progress payment is made beyond 30 days. Rather, the legislative goal of prompt payment is effected by generously compensating the contractor for the time value of its money when delay occurs, and thus deterring tardy payments.<\/p>

We accordingly hold that when section 20104.50 is incorporated into a local agency\u2019s public works contract, as it was here, the agency does not breach that contract merely by making a progress payment after 30 days. The statute is violated, and a breach of contract occurs, if and when the agency fails to pay the requisite interest after a late payment is made.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In case your heart just fell to the pit of your stomach at the injustice, fret not. The Court of Appeals then turned to \u201cwhether the instructional error likely affected the outcome,\u201d and here concluded the court, \u201cwe conclude it did not for two reasons\u201d:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, there was substantial evidence of numerous other (and much more serious) breaches by North Edwards, including its:<\/p>

\u2014Unwillingness to take responsibility, as the owner who chose Pureflow, for Pureflow\u2019s \u201cfailings in moving the project and delivering.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014Failure to extend Clark\u2019s time to perform based on delay in (a) moving the power poles and lines, (b) dealing with undesignated high pressure gas lines, and (c) drilling the new well close to the existing one.<\/p>

\u2014Improper management of the Project.<\/p>

\u2014Termination of Clark when the general contractor still had three months to perform, even without any time extension.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

And, second, explained the Court of Appeal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even more significant, North Edwards could not have been prejudiced by the instructional error because the record affirmatively demonstrates the jury did not <\/em>base its damage award on tardy progress payments. Clark\u2019s construction expert calculated damages by a simple formula that did not even consider late payment. He determined the amount Clark spent on the Project ($5,021,755), deducted what North Edwards paid Clark ($2,250,133), added a reasonable amount for profit ($377,230) and overhead ($139,869), resulting in $3,288,721 in claimed damage. The jury awarded this same $3,288,721. Thus, we are confident the verdict was unaffected by any instructional error regarding prompt payment obligations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So, there you have it, a rather bland legal decision \u2013 A local agency\u2019s violation of Public Contract Code section 20104.05(b) gives rise to a remedy (i.e.<\/em>, interest at the legal rate) but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note:<\/strong>\u00a0Apparently, one of the District\u2019s board members stated that he does not drink the water. Remind you of something?\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog While construction projects can get messy, they don\u2019t get much messier than the next case, which, while involving a fairly limited legal issue, has such jaw dropping facts it\u2019s worth a read if only to make you feel a bit better about your own project. The Clark Bros.… Continue reading Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part<\/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":[9914],"tags":[9895,158,23,9249],"class_list":["post-900501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","tag-advise-consult","tag-breach-of-contract","tag-insurance-coverage","tag-prompt-payment","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nViolation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts\" \/>\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\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-10-20T20:39:00+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-20T20:39:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\"},\"wordCount\":2269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"Breach of Contract\",\"insurance coverage\",\"Prompt Payment\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\",\"name\":\"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-20T20:39:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/\"]}]},{\"@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":"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts","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\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-10-20T20:39:00+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part","datePublished":"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-20T20:39:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/"},"wordCount":2269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","Breach of Contract","insurance coverage","Prompt Payment"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/","name":"Violation of Prompt Payment Statutes is Not a Breach of Contract. But That\u2019s Not the Most Interesting Part - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-10-20T20:38:54+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-20T20:39:00+00:00","description":"A local agency\u2019s violation gives rise to a remedy but does not constitute a breach of contract \u2013 but one based on a sensational set of facts","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/prompt-payment-statute-not-breach-of-contract\/"]}]},{"@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\/p2ztG6-3Mgd","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900501","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=900501"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900501\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":900502,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/900501\/revisions\/900502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=900501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=900501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=900501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}