No-damages-for-delay clause: Evaluating contract delay risk

H. Randolph Thomas, John Messner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In recent years, there have been a number of construction disputes involving no-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts. This paper reviews the legal aspects of the no-damages-for-delay clause and presents in an easy-to-use flowchart the issues that need to be addressed to resolve disputes involving the no-damages-for-delay clause. Analysis shows that the clause presents a formidable obstacle for contractors to overcome if monetary damages are to be recovered. The contractor in most instances needs to show that the owner or the owner's agent caused active hindrance or the owner demonstrated bad faith toward the contractor. The language of the clause is critical to determining the risk it conveys to the contractor. Examples of minimal, intermediate, and maximum risk language are given.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)257-262
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice
Volume129
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2003

Fingerprint

Contractors
Damage
Owners
Dispute
Language

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Industrial relations
  • Strategy and Management

Cite this

@article{43ed73d0944f4f94b68a6251304cbba5,
title = "No-damages-for-delay clause: Evaluating contract delay risk",
abstract = "In recent years, there have been a number of construction disputes involving no-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts. This paper reviews the legal aspects of the no-damages-for-delay clause and presents in an easy-to-use flowchart the issues that need to be addressed to resolve disputes involving the no-damages-for-delay clause. Analysis shows that the clause presents a formidable obstacle for contractors to overcome if monetary damages are to be recovered. The contractor in most instances needs to show that the owner or the owner's agent caused active hindrance or the owner demonstrated bad faith toward the contractor. The language of the clause is critical to determining the risk it conveys to the contractor. Examples of minimal, intermediate, and maximum risk language are given.",
author = "Thomas, {H. Randolph} and John Messner",
year = "2003",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:4(257)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "129",
pages = "257--262",
journal = "Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice",
issn = "1052-3928",
publisher = "American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)",
number = "4",

}

No-damages-for-delay clause : Evaluating contract delay risk. / Thomas, H. Randolph; Messner, John.

In: Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 129, No. 4, 01.10.2003, p. 257-262.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - No-damages-for-delay clause

T2 - Evaluating contract delay risk

AU - Thomas, H. Randolph

AU - Messner, John

PY - 2003/10/1

Y1 - 2003/10/1

N2 - In recent years, there have been a number of construction disputes involving no-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts. This paper reviews the legal aspects of the no-damages-for-delay clause and presents in an easy-to-use flowchart the issues that need to be addressed to resolve disputes involving the no-damages-for-delay clause. Analysis shows that the clause presents a formidable obstacle for contractors to overcome if monetary damages are to be recovered. The contractor in most instances needs to show that the owner or the owner's agent caused active hindrance or the owner demonstrated bad faith toward the contractor. The language of the clause is critical to determining the risk it conveys to the contractor. Examples of minimal, intermediate, and maximum risk language are given.

AB - In recent years, there have been a number of construction disputes involving no-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts. This paper reviews the legal aspects of the no-damages-for-delay clause and presents in an easy-to-use flowchart the issues that need to be addressed to resolve disputes involving the no-damages-for-delay clause. Analysis shows that the clause presents a formidable obstacle for contractors to overcome if monetary damages are to be recovered. The contractor in most instances needs to show that the owner or the owner's agent caused active hindrance or the owner demonstrated bad faith toward the contractor. The language of the clause is critical to determining the risk it conveys to the contractor. Examples of minimal, intermediate, and maximum risk language are given.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13944264007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13944264007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:4(257)

DO - 10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2003)129:4(257)

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:13944264007

VL - 129

SP - 257

EP - 262

JO - Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

JF - Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice

SN - 1052-3928

IS - 4

ER -