Legal Aspects of Oral Change Orders
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 117, Issue 1
Abstract
This paper describes the legal aspects of oral change orders or directives. It provides basic criteria for an owner, contract administrator, or contractor to determine if an oral directive is valid, entitling the contractor to additional compensation. The criteria are based on common law rules extracted from a review of more than 70 appellate court cases. The rules provide that for an oral directive to be valid, there must be no statutes requiring a written change, the owner must have knowledge of the work, and he must know that the contractor is expecting compensation for the additional work. A promise to pay cannot be rescinded. Other aspects discussed include proper or apparent authority and waiver. The case law review revealed substantial consistency in the application of these rules, and no discernible differences were found between the public and private sectors. The rules are arranged in an easy‐to‐follow flowchart, and numerous case citations are included. Recommended practices are also included.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bartlett v. Stanchfield. (n.d.). 148 Mass. 394, 19 N.E. 549, 2 L.R.A. 625.
2.
Berg v. Kucharo Construction Co. (1946). 21 N.W.2d 561, 567.
3.
Blair v. United States. (1946). 66 F.Supp. 405, 405.
4.
Central Iowa Grading, Inc. v. UDE Corp. (1986). 392 N.W.2d 857, 858.
5.
Earl T. Browder, Inc. v. County Court. (1958). 143 W.Va. 406, 102 S.E.2d. 425.
6.
“Enforceability of the requirement of notice in highway construction contracts.” (1986). Res. Results Dig., Transportation Research Board (TRB), 152, 7.
7.
Flour Mills of America, Inc. v. American Steel Building Co. (1969). 449 P.2d 861, 878.
8.
Frank Sullivan v. Midwest Sheetmetal Works. (1964). 335 F.2d 33.
9.
Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Manion. (n.d.). 113 Ky. 7, 67 S.W. 40, 101 Am. St. Rep. 345.
10.
Kenison v. Baldwin. (1960). 351 P.2d 307.
11.
Montgomery v. City of Philadelphia. (1958). 391 Pa. 607, 139 A.2d. 347.
12.
R. D. Wood & Co. v. City of Fort Wayne. (1886). 119 U.S. 312, 321.
13.
Reif v. Smith. (1982). 319 N.W.2d 815, 817.
14.
Simon, M. S. (1982). Construction law claims and liability. Arlylse Enterprises, Inc., Butler, N.J.
15.
Simon, M. S. (1979). Construction contracts and claims. McGraw‐Hill, Inc., New York, N.Y.
16.
Supreme Construction Co., Inc. v. Olympic Recreation, Inc. (1959). 7 Wis.2d 74, 96 N.W.2d 809.
17.
Sweet, J. (1989). Legal aspects of architecture engineering and the construction process. 4th Ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.
18.
Teer v. George A. Fuller Co. (1929). 30 F.2d 30, 32.
19.
The Sappho. (1899). 94 Fed. 545, 549.
20.
Thomas, H. R., Smith, G. R., and Wright, D. W. (1990). “Resolving disputes over contract notice requirements.” J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., ASCE, 116(12), 738–755.
21.
United States v. Slater. (1953). 111 F.Supp. 418, 420.
22.
Watson Lumber Company v. Guennewig. (1967). 226 N.E.2d 270.
23.
Weeshoff Construction Co. v. Los Angeles County Flood Control District. (1979). 88 Cal.App.3d 579.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 117 • Issue 1 • March 1991
Pages: 148 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 ASCE.
History
Published online: Mar 1, 1991
Published in print: Mar 1991
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.