A contract has been finalized and construction has begun on a project that is to be completed in 90 days. There is no float time in the schedule. After the first 30 days, the zoning inspector stops the project because approval of an easement has not been completed. The contractor requests a change order for additional time and money. What should happen in this case?
The contractor should be given the time extension without the additional cost.
In this scenario, the contractor is entitled to a time extension because the delay is caused by circumstances outside of their control, specifically the zoning inspector's halt due to the incomplete easement approval. Since there is no float time in the schedule, the contractor cannot absorb this delay, and thus they deserve an extension to complete the project without incurring additional costs.
This choice is correct as the contractor's delay results from an external factor (the zoning inspector) rather than any fault of their own. In construction contracts, delays caused by third parties typically warrant a time extension without additional costs, ensuring that the contractor is not penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
This option is incorrect because rejecting the contractor's request does not consider the external factors causing the delay. It would be unfair to penalize the contractor for delays resulting from the responsibilities of zoning authorities, which are not under the contractor's control.
While this option suggests that the owner is taking a reasonable course of action, it fails to specify that the approval should be for a time extension without additional costs. Simply approving the request might imply that additional costs will be considered, which is not warranted given the circumstances.
This choice misplaces responsibility. The local zoning jurisdiction is not typically liable for costs incurred due to delays it causes. The contractor should not be held financially accountable for unforeseen delays linked to regulatory approvals, thus making this option incorrect.
In this case, the contractor is entitled to a time extension due to delays caused by the zoning inspector’s actions, which are beyond their control. Granting this extension without additional costs aligns with standard contractual practices that protect contractors from unforeseen regulatory delays. Other options incorrectly allocate responsibility or fail to recognize the contractor's need for equitable treatment under the circumstances.
Related Questions
View allThe design/build contracting method requires that
The general rule of law for interpreting an ambiguous provision of a c...
The contractor's property insurance covers damage to
The MOST important reason for a thorough understanding of a contract i...
What percentage of workers' compensation premiums for an employee can...
Related Quizzes
View all- ✓ 500+ Practice Questions
- ✓ Detailed Explanations
- ✓ Progress Analytics
- ✓ Exam Simulations