DOCSLIB.ORG

Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses | a National Survey | Shook, Hardy & Bacon

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses | a National Survey | Shook, Hardy & Bacon 2020 — Force Majeure SHOOK SHB.COM and Common Law Defenses A National Survey APRIL 2020 — Force Majeure and Common Law Defenses A National Survey Contractual force majeure provisions allocate risk of nonperformance due to events beyond the parties’ control. The occurrence of a force majeure event is akin to an affirmative defense to one’s obligations. This survey identifies issues to consider in light of controlling state law. Then we summarize the relevant law of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2020 — Shook Force Majeure Amy Cho Thomas J. Partner Dammrich, II 312.704.7744 Partner Task Force [email protected] 312.704.7721 [email protected] Bill Martucci Lynn Murray Dave Schoenfeld Tom Sullivan Norma Bennett Partner Partner Partner Partner Of Counsel 202.639.5640 312.704.7766 312.704.7723 215.575.3130 713.546.5649 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] SHOOK SHB.COM Melissa Sonali Jeanne Janchar Kali Backer Erin Bolden Nott Davis Gunawardhana Of Counsel Associate Associate Of Counsel Of Counsel 816.559.2170 303.285.5303 312.704.7716 617.531.1673 202.639.5643 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] John Constance Bria Davis Erika Dirk Emily Pedersen Lischen Reeves Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate 816.559.2017 816.559.0397 312.704.7768 816.559.2662 816.559.2056 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Katelyn Romeo Jon Studer Ever Tápia Matt Williams Associate Associate Vergara Associate 215.575.3114 312.704.7736 Associate 415.544.1932 [email protected] [email protected] 816.559.2946 [email protected] [email protected] ATLANTA | BOSTON | CHICAGO | DENVER | HOUSTON | KANSAS CITY | LONDON | LOS ANGELES MIAMI | ORANGE COUNTY | PHILADELPHIA | SAN FRANCISCO | SEATTLE | TAMPA | WASHINGTON, D.C. THE CHOICE OF A LAWYER IS AN IMPORTANT DECISION AND SHOULD NOT BE BASED SOLELY UPON ADVERTISEMENTS. FORCE MAJEURE AND COMMON LAW DEFENSES Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Alabama ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Alaska ............................................................................................................................................................... 6 Arizona ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Arkansas ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 California ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Colorado .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Connecticut ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 Delaware ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Florida ............................................................................................................................................................ 23 Georgia ........................................................................................................................................................... 26 Hawaii ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Idaho .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 SHOOK SHOOK Illinois ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 SHB.COM SHB.COM Indiana ........................................................................................................................................................... 36 Iowa ............................................................................................................................................................... 38 Kansas ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 Kentucky ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 Louisiana ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 Maine ............................................................................................................................................................. 50 Maryland ........................................................................................................................................................ 52 Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Michigan ........................................................................................................................................................ 60 Minnesota ...................................................................................................................................................... 65 Mississippi ..................................................................................................................................................... 70 Missouri ......................................................................................................................................................... 73 Montana ..........................................................................................................................................................75 Nebraska ......................................................................................................................................................... 77 Nevada............................................................................................................................................................ 80 FORCE MAJEURE AND COMMON LAW DEFENSES New Hampshire ............................................................................................................................................. 83 New Jersey ..................................................................................................................................................... 85 New Mexico .................................................................................................................................................... 89 New York ........................................................................................................................................................ 94 North Carolina ............................................................................................................................................... 99 North Dakota ................................................................................................................................................ 101 Ohio ............................................................................................................................................................. 104 Oklahoma ...................................................................................................................................................... 107 Oregon ........................................................................................................................................................... 110 Pennsylvania ................................................................................................................................................. 113 Rhode Island ................................................................................................................................................. 116 South Carolina ............................................................................................................................................. 120 South Dakota ................................................................................................................................................. 123 Tennessee ...................................................................................................................................................... 125 Texas ............................................................................................................................................................ 128 SHOOK SHOOK Utah .............................................................................................................................................................. 133 SHB.COM SHB.COM Vermont .......................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer V
    Journal of Dispute Resolution Volume 1993 Issue 1 Article 9 1993 Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co. Steven R. Leppard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr Part of the Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons Recommended Citation Steven R. Leppard, Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: Escape Clauses in Uninsured Motorist Policies - Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1993 J. Disp. Resol. (1993) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1993/iss1/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Dispute Resolution by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leppard: Leppard: Arbitration - Sure, but Only on Our Terms: NOTES ARBITRATION? SURE, BUT ONLY ON OUR TERMS: ESCAPE CLAUSES IN UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICIES Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co.' I. INTRODUCTION Historically, the insurance industry has widely used arbitration to resolve disputes.2 Insurance companies have increasingly included "escape clauses" in their policies.' These clauses allow an insurance company to ignore an arbitrator's award and have a claim directly heard in a trial court if the award exceeds a pre-determined amount.' The Ohio Supreme Court in Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance Co. addressed this issue and decided that the escape clause was unenforceable due to public policy.' II. FACTS AND HOLDING On November 8, 1985, an automobile occupied by David and Jeanette Schaefer was involved in an accident with a car negligently driven by an uninsured motorist.' At the time of the accident, the Schaefers had an insurance policy with appellant Allstate Insurance Company that provided uninsured motorist coverage with limits at $100,000 per person and $300,000 per 7 occurrence.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 2015 Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks Alan Schwartz [email protected] Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Alan Schwartz & Robert E. Scott, Third Party Beneficiaries and Contractual Networks, JOURNAL OF LEGAL ANALYSIS, VOL. 7, P. 325, 2015; YALE LAW & ECONOMICS RESEARCH PAPER NO. 523 (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1900 This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES AND CONTRACTUAL NETWORKS Alan Schwartz* and Robert E. Scott** Contact: Robert E. Scott Columbia Law School 435 W. 116th Street New York, New York 10027 212-854-0072 fax: 212-854-7946 [email protected] 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2550436 Abstract An increasing trend of economic agents is to form productive associations such as networks, platforms and other hybrids. Subsets of these agents contract with each other to further their network project and these contracts can create benefits for, or impose costs on, agents who are not contract parties. Contract law regulates third party claims against contract parties with the third party beneficiary doctrine, which directs courts to ask whether the contracting parties “intended” to benefit a particular third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Breakfast Seminar Series: Is Your Employment Contract Enforceable? What Would a Judge Say?
    Breakfast Seminar Series: Is Your Employment Contract Enforceable? What would a judge say? Jock Climie Kecia Podetz www.ehlaw.ca May 11, 2016 Overview ▫ The basics ▫ Key provisions in every contract ▫ Proper consideration ▫ Fixed term contract pitfalls ▫ Enforceable termination clauses ▫ Restrictive covenants 2 www.ehlaw.ca 1 The Basics 3 Forming the Contract ▫ Every employment relationship is governed by an employment contract ▫ How is an employment contract formed? ▫ Offer ▫ Acceptance ▫ Consideration ▫ Opportunity for independent legal advice 4 www.ehlaw.ca 2 Timing and Clarity ▫ A contract must be presented before employment commences ▫ All terms should be clear and unequivocal ▫ Ambiguities interpreted against the interest of the party who drafted the contract ▫ Interpretation most favorable to the employee will be used 5 Key Provisions –The Obvious Stuff ▫ Duration and form of the employment relationship ▫ Start date ▫ Probationary period ▫ Hours of work ▫ Compensation practices ▫ Salary ▫ Benefits ▫ Vacation 6 www.ehlaw.ca 3 Key Provisions –Employer Protect Thyself ▫ Protection of interests ▫ Confidentiality ▫ Non‐solicitation ▫ Non‐competition ▫ Termination ▫ Notice of termination/severance pay and benefits liability ▫ Resignation ▫ Successor employer/sale of business 7 Consideration 8 www.ehlaw.ca 4 What is Proper Consideration? ▫ Each party receives something of value, and each party gives something up in return ▫ Can come in many forms –value is widely defined ▫ Fact‐specific –no clear rule for appropriate consideration ▫ Who is the employee ▫ What is the position ▫ What are the circumstances ▫ What is a “fair exchange” 9 What Would a Judge Say? ▫ An employee signs a letter of offer which is silent on termination entitlements ▫ The letter indicates that an employment agreement will be forthcoming ▫ 9 months later, the employee signs the employment agreement contemplated by the letter of offer ▫ Termination clause = ESA only ▫ On termination, the employer provides only ESA notice 10 www.ehlaw.ca 5 Case Study – Holland v.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Buyer Fails to Prove That Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki
    Loyola Consumer Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 3 Article 5 1998 Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract Karina Zabicki Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons Recommended Citation Karina Zabicki Medical Buyer Fails to Prove that Letter Evidenced a Valid Requirements Contract, 10 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 217 (1998). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol10/iss3/5 This Recent Case is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola Consumer Law Review by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Cases And, part three required that the Unlike the defendant in EDIAS, companies in Arizona. Moreover, "exercise ofjurisdiction must be Cybersell FLs only contact with there was no evidence that any reasonable." Arizona was the information it Arizonan had enlisted Cybersell FL's Cybersell AZ relied on several posted on its web page. As a result, web assistance. Essentially, cases for support, but the court the court found EDIAS unpersuasive Cybersell FL's presence in Arizona found the cases unpersuasive for Cybersell AZ. was negligible. because the holdings were broader Instead, the Ninth Circuit The court concluded that posting than Cybersell AZ suggested. For determined that Cybersell FL took information on the Internet without example, Cybersell AZ relied on an no steps to "purposefully avail" taking steps to purposefully avail Arizona case where the court stated itself of Arizona's benefits, whereas oneself of the laws of the forum that a defendant should not "escape the defendant in EDIAS did.
    [Show full text]
  • The Escape Clause Under the Succession Regulation and Other International Issues
    The escape clause under the Succession Regulation and other international issues Maria Grazia Antoci Lawyer in Florence, Italy UNIT 1 Summary and the notion of habitual residence - Part I Succession Regulation (SR): questions to be addressed What is an escape clause? Is there any autonomous field of application of such clause under the Succession Regulation? Summary Definition of habitual residence under the SR Scope of Escape Clause under the SR Scope of Escape clause under other instruments Comparison Conclusions Habitual residence (SR) To better understand the scope of escape clause we need to: recall the notion of habitual residence; compare the field of application of the habitual residence with the scope of the “escape clause”. Article 21.1 introduces the connecting factor of the Habitual Residence as general rule. “Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to the succession as a whole shall be the law of the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death.” Habitual residence (SR) The provision of an uniform connecting factor in the Succession Regulation is a significant development in the process of harmonisation at European level. The adoption of a connecting factor which was close to the centre of interests of the deceased, thus satisfying the need for proximity, does facilitate the mobility of persons within the European area. The aim was to choose a criterion that was as free as possible from the substantive law of each State (unlike “domicile”) and that had an international origin. Habitual residence (SR) It responds to the need for integration and non-discrimination between individuals established in a Member State, whatever their nationality is.
    [Show full text]
  • DDS WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. V. NUTMEG LEASING, INC. (AC 34278) Robinson, Bear and Peters, Js
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** DDS WIRELESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. NUTMEG LEASING, INC. (AC 34278) Robinson, Bear and Peters, Js. Argued March 21Ðofficially released September 10, 2013 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Hon. John W. Moran, judge trial referee.) Linda L. Morkan, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Experience of the French Civil Code
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 20 Number 2 Article 3 Winter 1995 Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Oliver Moreleau Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Oliver Moreleau, Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code, 20 N.C. J. INT'L L. 273 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol20/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This article is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol20/ iss2/3 Codes as Straight-Jackets, Safeguards, and Alibis: The Experience of the French Civil Code Olivier Moriteaut I. Introduction: The Civil Code as a Straight-Jacket? Since 1789, which marked the year of the French Revolution, France has known no fewer than thirteen constitutions.' This fact is scarcely evidence of political stability, although it is fair to say that the Constitution of 1958, of the Fifth Republic, has remained in force for over thirty-five years. On the other hand, the Civil Code (Code), which came into force in 1804, has remained substantially unchanged throughout this entire period.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Needs That Recital of Consideration?
    DraftingDrafting aa newnew dayday Who needs that ‘recital of consideration’? By Kenneth A. Adams t’s hardly a shocking notion that are hereby acknowledged, the parties Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts any given contract could contain hereto covenant and agree as follows. 150 (2d. ed. 1998).) It follows that Ione or more provisions that reflect Recitals of consideration raise a using instead the vague language of a an inaccurate or outdated view of con- number of issues of legal usage. For traditional recital of consideration tract law. What’s more noteworthy is example, NOW, THEREFORE is archa- would be equally ineffective. the fact one such provision — the tra- ic, while in consideration of the premises Similarly, a false recital of consider- ditional recital of consideration — is simply an obscure way of saying ation cannot create consideration appears in most corporate agreements. “therefore” and is superfluous given where there was none. If, in the con- In this article, I explain why that the preceding “therefore.” And refer- tract between Acme and Roe, Acme traditional recital of consideration ences to the value or sufficiency of recites falsely that the payment to Roe fails to serve its intended purpose and consideration are outdated: With the was in consideration of future services why omitting it could only improve a rise of the “bargain test of considera- and Acme subsequently refuses to pay contract. tion” reflected in the Restatement (Sec- the bonus, Acme should prevail in any The ostensible function of a recital ond) of Contracts, the focus of judges action brought by Roe if it succeeds in of consideration is to render enforce- has shifted from the substance of the proving that the recital was false.
    [Show full text]
  • Use the Force? Understanding Force Majeure Clauses
    Use the Force? Understanding Force Majeure Clauses J. Hunter Robinson† J. Christopher Selman†† Whitt Steineker††† Alexander G. Thrasher†††† Introduction It has been said that, sooner or later, everything old is new again.1 In the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) sweeping the globe in 2020, a heretofore largely overlooked and even less understood nineteenth century legal term has come to the forefront of American jurisprudence: force majeure. Force majeure has become a topic du jour in the COVID-19 world with individuals and companies around the world seeking to excuse non- † B.S. (2011), Auburn University; J.D. (2014), Emory University School of Law. Hunter Robinson is an associate at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Hunter is a member of the firm’s litigation and banking and financial services practice groups and represents clients in commercial litigation matters across the country. †† B.S. (2007), Auburn University; J.D. (2012), University of South Carolina School of Law. Chris Selman is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Chris is a members of the firm’s construction and government contracts practice group. He has extensive experience advising clients at every stage of a construction project, managing the resolution of construction disputes domestically and internationally, and drafting and negotiating contracts for a variety of contractor and owner clients. ††† B.A. (2003), University of Alabama; J.D. (2008), Georgetown University Law Center. Whitt Steineker is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Whitt is a member of the firm’s litigation practice group, where he advises clients on a full range of services and routinely represents companies in complex commercial litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview With
    entrevista a Nikos Antimissaris Consejero – Director General MAPFRE ASISTENCIA Madrid – España Contact center de MAPFRE ASISTENCIA en China Nikos Antimissaris, griego de nacimiento, cursó la Licenciatura en Administración de Empresas en la Universidad de Lieja (Bél- gica), vinculándose a España el último año de universidad, al es- tudiar entre 1992 y 1993 en la Universidad de Valladolid (España) dentro del programa europeo ERASMUS. Completó su formación académica con el MBA del Instituto de Empresa Business School, de Madrid (España). Además del griego, domina el inglés, el fran- cés y el español. Su carrera profesional se inició en 1994 en su país natal con MAPFRE ASISTENCIA, como Director General de la Unidad de Negocio de Grecia. En 2001 fue trasladado a los Servicios Cen- trales en Madrid para dirigir el negocio del área geográfica de Europa y Oriente Medio. En 2004 fue promocionado a Subdirec- tor General de la entidad y desde 2006 ostenta el cargo de Con- sejero Director General de MAPFRE ASISTENCIA. 40 / 67 / 2013 667_trebol_esp.indd7_trebol_esp.indd 4040 007/11/137/11/13 001:581:58 “MAPFRE ASISTENCIA aporta una solución integral a sus socios aseguradores que incluye, no sólo la suscripción del riesgo (por la vía del reaseguro), sino también toda la infraestructura operativa para la tramitación de los siniestros y la prestación de los servicios.” Nikos Antimissaris habla siempre en primera persona del plural porque siente que alcanzar en 2013 un volumen de ingresos de mil cien millones de euros es una labor de los seis mil empleados de MAPFRE ASISTENCIA desde los cuarenta y cinco países en que está presente.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Federal Claims No
    In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 10-048C (Filed: November 30, 2011) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RICHARD CARTER AND JERRY GOODWIN, d/b/a R&J FEED, Plaintiffs, Contract; third-party beneficiary; v. Astra; mutuality; consideration THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stephen Quesenberry, Provo, Utah, with whom was Michael Quesenberry, for plaintiffs. Michael Paul Goodman, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., with whom were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Kirk Manhardt, Assistant Director for defendant. _________ OPINION _________ BRUGGINK, Judge. This is an action for breach of an asserted contract between the United States Department of Agriculture, acting through the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”), and beneficiaries of a drought relief program coordinated by the government and several states. Under the program, the federal government provided large quantities of nonfat dry milk to individual states, which distributed the nonfat dry milk to livestock producers. Before the 1 court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s1 motion for Rule 56(d) discovery. The matter is fully briefed. Oral argument was held on September 6, 2011. For the reasons discussed below, we grant in part and deny in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff’s motion for additional discovery. BACKGROUND2 The early 2000s were a time of severe drought in western states, resulting in a significant shortage in livestock feed. To ameliorate the effects of the drought, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) created a drought relief program in 2002 pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 7285 (2006)3.
    [Show full text]
  • 26 Chap 26.Qxp
    Chapter 26 CONTRACT CLAUSES MANAGING, ALLOCATING, AND TRANSFERRING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT RISKS C. Michael Shull III, Esq., Editor and Author (2007 Supplement) Holland & Hart LLP Douglas A. Karet, Esq., Editor and Author (2005 Supplement); Author (2003 Supplement) Holloway Brabec & Karet PC Buck S. Beltzer, Esq., P.E., Author (2005 Supplement) Holland & Hart LLP Robert E. Benson, Esq., Editor and Author (2003 Supplement) Holland & Hart LLP SYNOPSIS § 26.1 INTRODUCTION § 26.1.1—Overview § 26.1.2—Types Of Risks To Which Parties To A Construction Contract Can Be Exposed, And Which Risks Can Be Managed, Allocated, And Transferred § 26.1.3—The “Means” Of Parties Managing, Allocating, And Transferring Construction Project Risks § 26.1.4—Methods Of Management, Allocation, And Transfer Of Construction Project Risks By Contract § 26.1.5—The Meaningful Considerations About Risk Transfer Clauses § 26.2 PROCEDURAL CLAUSES FOR MANAGEMENT, ALLOCATION, AND TRANSFER OF RISKS § 26.2.1—Overview § 26.2.2—Choice Of Law Clauses § 26.2.3—Forum Selection Clauses § 26.2.4—Notice Of Claim Clauses § 26.2.5—Contractual Statutes Of Limitation § 26.2.6—Clauses Defining Commencement Of Statute Of Limitations § 26.2.7—Mediation Clauses § 26.2.8—Arbitration Clauses (10/07) 26-1 The Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Construction Law § 26.2.9—Waiver Of Trial By Jury § 26.2.10—No Discovery Clauses § 26.2.11—Change Order Requirements § 26.2.12—Warranties § 26.2.13—Summary Of Procedural Clauses § 26.3 DAMAGE LIMITATION CLAUSES § 26.3.1—Overview § 26.3.2—Limitations On Types
    [Show full text]