7/14/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J U L 14 1982 requisition for payment of the pending lawsuit. their counsel of record requisition would not in of any rights which we m litigation. I would exp they are acceptable to m and his counsel in the e tion and elects to pay t .800A . 50 FnE 419 embraces work that is the subject matter I would likewise require a letter from to the effect that payment of this any fashion act as a waiver or release ight have in connection with the pending ect to draft those documents so that - e and have them signed by the contractor vent the County approves this recdmmenda- he pending requisition. In addition to the foregoing, as a condition precedent to':payment of any such requisition, I would require an appropriate letter, which I would draft, be executed by counsel for Reinhold Construc- tion Company, acknowledging that payment of this requisition did not in any fashion act as a waiver, release,,or relinquishment of any right which the County presently has with respect to R4inhold Construction Company concerning the performance of any changed work, any credits that might be due to the owner in connection with work deleted from the base contract, the issues presently pending in the litigation, and any and all other claims which the County might hereinafter assert regarding defects in the materials and workmanship supplied by Reinhold Construction Co. Once these documents are in hand, I believe the County would be adequately protected. Payment of the final requisition could not then be construed to be a "final acceptance" of the work _performed that might by.operation of law release the contractor from liability for any defect which was hereinafter determined to be patent in nature. Receipt of these documents would 1'ike- wise ensure that any claim connected either with the pending lawsuit, or with the formaldehyde issue, would be preserved. I would specifically spell those matters out in the letter:to be signed by counsel for Reinhold Construction Company so there could be no question about the preservation of our rights in that connection at a later date. Once all of this is accomplished, payment of the requisition will simply serve to relieve the County from the impact of any threat- ened litigation connected with payment of this particular requisi- tion, interest claims -that might be asserted in connection there- with, or any claim for attorneys' fees and court costs that might be asserted if the matter were injected into the pending litigation. Under these circumstances, it would be my opinion that payment. of the requisition would simply eliminate any downside risk that the County might have that would be connected with a refusal to pay a requisition appropriately certified by the architect, while at the same time we would preserve all rights of the County against Reinhold Construction that might arise out of the performance of the work in question. I would assume that following receipt -of this letter, the matter would be placed on the agenda for consideration by the County Commission and subject to the conditions set out in this letter, the Commission would elect whether or not to pay the requisition in question. If the Commission elects to comply with our recommendation iD this connection, then at that point. in time, I would deliver to Jim Knudson, counsel for Reinha-ld'Con-struction Inc'., the appropriate documents for signature by he and his client while a check is being cut for delivery to Reinhold. We would then provide for a simultaneous exchange of the required documentation for that check. If you have any further questions regarding our opinions or conclusions on this particular matter, please -give me a call.. I am arranging for hand delivery of this letter to you in order 10