Commercial and Legal Considerations of Offsite Construction Projects and their Hybrid Transactions
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 146, Issue 12
Abstract
The commercial and legal challenges of offsite construction technology have become more pronounced with the ongoing rise and growing popularity of such construction method. Offsite construction represents a combination between construction services-based activities and manufacturing/fabrication goods-based tasks, thus called hybrid transactions. This mixed nature has created many uncertainties concerning whether the common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) shall govern. To this end, this paper aims to enhance the knowledge of the commercial and legal treatment of hybrid offsite construction transactions. To achieve that, this paper followed a research methodology that employs three types of analysis: analysis of the commercial and legal provisions, case study analysis, and comparative analysis. That said, the paper (1) studied the UCC’s commercial and legal stipulations with regard to hybrid offsite construction transactions; (2) analyzed six case studies in the US to examine the decision structure upon which the courts determine whether the common law or the UCC shall govern the hybrid offsite construction transactions; and (3) compared between the common law and UCC provisions as related to the treatment of hybrid offsite construction transactions. To verify the usefulness and benefits of the performed analyses in this paper, the authors shared the outcomes of the paper with a focus group of leading attorneys and experts at two major US law firms with an average experience of more than in hybrid transactions, offsite construction processes, and their related commercial and legal considerations. This paper provides guidance on different commercial and legal aspects of hybrid offsite construction transactions including offer acceptance and withdrawal, requirements for a written contract, offsite-fabricated goods’ inspection and rejection, risk of loss, and warranties, among others. Further, eight factors were identified to determine whether the common law or the UCC shall govern hybrid offsite construction transactions. This paper makes many contributions to the body of knowledge, with the primary contributions being providing a better discernment of the commercial and legal aspects of hybrid offsite construction projects and offering guidance to the management, commercial, and legal practitioners on different considerations related to offsite construction transactions.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during the study are included in the published paper. Information about the Journal’s data-sharing policy can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0001263.
Acknowledgments
Although the research presented in this paper is not part of the work related to the Construction Industry Institute (CII) RT-371, the authors would like to highlight that the idea of the paper was realized under such research project. Thus, the authors would like to offer their gratitude and appreciation to CII for the funding.
References
AGC (Associated General Contractors of America). 2017. Impact of prefabrication and modular construction on traditional construction contracts. Arlington, VA: AGC.
Assaad, R., and M. A. Abdul-Malak. 2020a. “Legal perspective on treatment of delay liquidated damages and penalty clauses by different jurisdictions: Comparative analysis.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000387.
Assaad, R., and M. A. Abdul-Malak. 2020b. “Timing of liquidated damages recovery and related liability issues.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (2): 04520015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000390.
Assaad, R., and I. H. El-adaway. 2020c. “Enhancing the knowledge of construction business failure: A social network analysis approach.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (6): 04020052. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001831.
Assaad, R., and I. H. El-adaway. 2020d. “Evaluation and prediction of the hazard potential level of dam infrastructures using computational artificial intelligence algorithms.” J. Manage. Eng. 36 (5): 04020051. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000810.
Assaad, R., I. H. El-adaway, and I. S. Abotaleb. 2020a. “Predicting project performance in the construction industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 146 (5): 04020030. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001797.
Assaad, R., A. Elsayegh, G. Ali, M. Abdul Nabi, and I. H. El-adaway. 2020b. “Back-to-back relationship under standard subcontract agreements: Comparative study.” J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 12 (3): 04520020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000406.
Atlantic Track & Turnout Co. v. Perini Corp., 989 F.2d 541 (1st Cir. 1993).
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Cormetech, Inc., 168 F. Supplement 3d 1017 (N.D. Ohio 2016).
Beeton, J. 2019. “The dotted line: Putting together the pieces of a modular project contract.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://www.constructiondive.com/news/the-dotted-line-putting-together-the-pieces-of-a-modular-project-contract/546923/.
Boardman Steel Fabricators, Ltd. v. Andritz, Inc. 2015 W.L. 5304293 (2015).
Bonebrake v. Cox, 499 F.2d 951 (8th Cir. 1974).
Brighenti, W. 2019. “Long-term contract defined.” Accessed October 9, 2019. http://www.cpa-connecticut.com/completedcontracts.html.
Bulman, J., and S. Pomeroy. 2010. “The Uniform Commercial Code and construction law: The possible applicability of article 2.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://www.americanbar.org/.
Burson, A. D. 2017. “Determining the feasibility of using abandoned big box stores as modular construction factories.” Master thesis, Dept. of Construction Science and Management, Clemson Univ.
CG Schmidt Inc. v. Permasteelisa North America, 142 F. Supplement 3d 755 (E.D. Wis. 2015).
Choi, J. O., X. B. Chen, and T. W. Kim. 2019. “Opportunities and challenges of modular methods in dense urban environment.” Int. J. Constr. Manage. 19 (2): 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1382093.
Ciotti, R. 2018. “Contract drafting for modular construction: A modern approach to a traditional craft.” Accessed October 6, 2019. http://www.modular.org/HtmlPage.aspx?name=MA-feature-contract-drafting.
Ciotti, R., and L. Bergeron. 2017. “Prefabrication & modular construction: A growing trend with evolving legal implications.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://www.hinckleyallen.com/publications/prefabricated-modular-construction-a-growing-trend-with-evolving-legal-implications/.
Dankert, G., and N. Uhl. 2018. “The Uniform Commercial Code: Does it apply to construction contracts and why does it matter?” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://www.icemiller.com/ice-on-fire-insights/publications/the-uniform-commercial-code-does-it-apply-to-const/.
Denton, B. 2019. “The difference between a contract that falls under the UCC and one that does not and why it is important to you.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://gundersondenton.com/business/difference-contract-falls-ucc-important/.
Do, A., S. Nelson, T. Spitzer, M. Steel, and L. Bartlett. 2018. “Contract policy manual.” Accessed October 24, 2019. http://cams.ocgov.com/Web_Publisher_Sam/Agenda06_05_2018_files/images/O01618-000537A.PDF.
Economy Forms Corporation v. Kandy, Inc., 391 F. Supplement 944 (N.D. Ga. 1974).
Epn-Delaval, SA v. Inter-Equip, Inc., 542 F. Supplement 238 (S.D. Tex. 1982).
Ewanchuk v. Mitchell, 154 S.W.3d 476 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
Generations Ranch, LLC v. Zarbock, 1 CA-CV 10-0771 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012).
Global Modular Construction Market Research Report. 2017. “Forecast to 2023: Market scenario.” Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.reportbuyer.com/product/5376942/global-modular-construction-market-research-report-forecast-to-2023.html.
Harwood, W. S. 1976. “Liquidated damages: A comparison of the common law and the Uniform Commercial Code.” Fordham Law Rev. 45 (7): 1349.
Haskell, B. 2018. “Insuring modular construction: Casualty considerations.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://axaxl.com/fast-fast-forward/articles/insuring-modular-construction_casualty-considerations.
HTRF Ventures, LLC v. Permasteelisa N. Am. Corp., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op 32095 (Sup. Ct. 2019).
Jensen, D. A., and J. E. Patterson. 2011. “Janus head of liquidated damages: Does public policy influence United States courts regarding enforceability of a liquidating damages clause?” Int. J. Constr. Educ. Res. 7 (2): 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2010.538947.
Kelleher, T. J., and G. S. Walters. 2009. Smith, Currie and Hancock’s common sense construction law: A practical guide for the construction professional. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Klein, A. 2018. “Offsite construction: Trending.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://www.bradley.com/-/media/files/insights/publications/2019/01/2x4x10-winter-2018.pdf?la=en.
Kwiatek, C. 2018. “Impact of spatial cognitive abilities on the effectiveness of augmented reality in construction and fabrication.” Master’s thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Waterloo.
Law Shelf. 2019. “Substantial performance.” Accessed October 6, 2019. https://lawshelf.com/courseware/entry/substantial-performance.
Little v. Grizzly Mfg., 636 P.2d 839, 195 Mont. 419 (1981).
Market Research Future. 2017. “Modular construction market research report—Forecast to 2023.” Accessed October 10, 2019. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/modular-construction-market-1682.
Martin, L. 2011. The predominant purpose test still predominates mixed goods/services transactions. Accessed October 9, 2019. http://ucclaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/predominant-purpose-test-still.html.
Mathis v. Exxon Corp., 302 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2002).
McDowell, R. 2019. “Common law contracts vs. UCC contracts.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://legalbeagle.com/8265383-components-legally-binding-contract.html.
Metro Invest. Corp. v. Portland Rd. Lumber Yard, Inc., 501 P.2d 312, 263 Or. 76 (1972).
Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. v. MBI Global, LLC (4th Cir. May 2, 2017).
Odetola, O. 2015. “Penalties and liquidated damages in a changing world: Rethinking the common law position.” J. Sustainable Dev. Law Policy 6 (1): 247–271. https://doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v6i1.11.
Oranburg, S., and L. Palagashvili. 2018. “The gig economy, smart contracts, and disruption of traditional work arrangements.” In Smart contracts, and disruption of traditional work arrangements. Rochester, NY: SSRN Electronic Journal.
Oswald, D., F. Wade, F. Sherratt, and S. D. Smith. 2019. “Communicating health and safety on a multinational construction project: Challenges and strategies.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 145 (4): 04019017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001634.
Pejovic, C. 2001. “Civil law and common law: Two different paths leading to the same goal.” Victoria Univ. Wellington Law Rev. 32 (3): 817. https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v32i3.5873.
Presser Law Firm. 2019. “Overview of UCC contracts and common law contracts.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://www.assetprotectionattorneys.com/Legal_and_Business_Counsel/Contract_Formation_and_Review/Uniform_Commercial_Code_UCC_Contacts_vs_Common_L.aspx.
Priori Legal. 2019. “Construction law lawyers & attorneys.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://www.priorilegal.com/legal-for-industries/construction-law.
Qwest Dex, Inc. v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 109 P.3d 118, 210 Ariz. 223 (Ct. App. 2005).
Rocket Lawyer. 2019. “Contracts for services vs. goods: What’s the difference?” Accessed October 7, 2019. //www.rocketlawyer.com/article/contract-for-goods-vs-contract-for-services-cb.rl.
Rose, F., ed. 2015. Blackstone’s statutes on contract, tort and restitution 2015–2016. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
South-Western Learning. 2019. “Formation of sales & lease contracts: Common law vs UCC.” Accessed October 10, 2019. http://www.swlearning.com/blaw/wdvl/wdvl/student/ai/ai_10_script.html.
Speed, V. 2019. “Alternative procurement methods and mediation strike common chords across construction industry.” Accessed October 6, 2019. http://digital.bnpmedia.com/publication/?i=582640&article_id=3361479&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5#{%22issue_id%22:582640,%22view%22:%22articleBrowser%22,%22article_id%22:%223361479%22}.
Trinity Industries v. McKinnon Bridge Co., 77 S.W.3d 159 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Tuulberg, L. 2018. “The future of construction will be offsite and wood will be an important part of the change.” Accessed October 10, 2019. https://medium.com/welement/the-future-of-construction-will-be-offsite-and-wood-will-be-an-important-part-of-the-change-76d305e417f2.
UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). 2002. “Uniform commercial code.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/.
UpCounsel. 2019. “Common law contracts vs. UCC: Everything you need to know.” Accessed October 7, 2019. https://www.upcounsel.com/common-law-contracts-vs-ucc.
Williams, B. 2019. “Bad foundation: Washington’s lack of homeowner rights.” Mitchell Hamline Law J. Public Policy Pract. 40 (1): 7.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 146 • Issue 12 • December 2020
Copyright
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 31, 2020
Accepted: Jul 15, 2020
Published online: Oct 13, 2020
Published in print: Dec 1, 2020
Discussion open until: Mar 13, 2021
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.