CNST Law and Ethics Pt. 2 from Cases and handouts || with 100% Error-free Answers.
7 keer bekeken 0 keer verkocht
Vak
CNST Law and Ethics
Instelling
CNST Law And Ethics
was Zachary Construction the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Petitioner
was Port of Houston the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Respondent
The common law permits a contractor to recover
damages for construction delays caused by the owner, but the
parties are free to corr...
was zachary construction the petitioner or respond
Geschreven voor
CNST Law and Ethics
CNST Law and Ethics
Verkoper
Volgen
FullyFocus
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
CNST Law and Ethics Pt. 2 from Cases and handouts || with
100% Error-free Answers.
was Zachary Construction the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Petitioner
was Port of Houston the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Respondent
The common law permits a contractor to recover
damages for construction delays caused by the owner, but the
parties are free to correct answers contract differently
how long was the dock supposed to be in Zachary v. Port of Houston originally? correct answers
1,660 ft, two ships in 5 sections 40 ft deep
how much was the original cost of the wharf? correct answers $62,485,733
"the port authority shall ____ have the rig to control the manner" of building correct answers not
what type of conditions did zachary want to work in? correct answers in-the-dry
how long did zachary have to complete the 2 sections for the chinese ship? correct answers 20
months
what were the liquidated damages for being late to deliver the 2 sections for the chinese ship?
correct answers $20,000 a day
what concerns did the port have with zacharys plan for the change order? correct answers they
were concerned that freezing the ground
near the piers might destabilize them, weakening the wharf
and making it unsafe.
the jury found in favor of: correct answers zachary
Texas supreme court found in favor of: correct answers Port of Houston
Zachary had to pay above all else _____ correct answers damages (rust) on defective fenders for
$970,000
was MASTEC the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Respondent
was El Paso the petitioner or respondent? correct answers Petitioner
what is the case over regarding MASTEC and El Paso? correct answers breach of contract by the
owner in not following through due diligence locating foreign crossings
, In MASTEC v. El Paso, Texas supreme court found in favor of: correct answers El Paso, Mastec
had the responsibility of confirming the foreign crossings
the end result of MASTEC v. El Paso, Texas correct answers The court found that the contract
allocated all risk to the contractor for unknown
obstacles discovered during the construction process.
Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals'
judgment and reinstate the trial court's judgment
What was El Paso's project? correct answers a 68 mile 8" pipeline for petroleum, the line was too
shallow and needed to be deeper, replace line with new one for butane
Mastec was trying to branch out into a new field of work correct answers bid significantly lower
than all other bidders by about 4 million
foreign crossings correct answers other pipelines, utilities, roads,
rivers, canals, fences, wells, cables, and concrete
structures
undiscovered foreign crossings were ____ correct answers within the scope of work
Mastec filed ____ over the 794 unknown crossings correct answers fraud
What is the case between Pearson and Fullingim (awesome air) over? correct answers breach of
contract since the pearsons signed contract, but had another team do work
the note Mrs. Pearson was correct answers a contract
Mr. and Mrs. Pearson were in the process of divorce and ____ the jury trial correct answers
missed
Mr. Pearson was ____ about the trial, and _____ correct answers negligent in reading the details,
the trial decision remained, so he had to appeal
Mrs. Pearson's suit was ______ correct answers dismissed by awesome air
Mr. Pearson Appealed: correct answers he did not receive notice of the
trial setting, the petition does not support the judgment, and the evidence is factually insufficient
to support the
award
Awesome Air's document was a contract because: correct answers it was clearly stated, just not
on the first page
Awesome Air reserved the right to: correct answers begin work before obtaining pre-payment
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper FullyFocus. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €10,40. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
