3 ms·

I wonder how often they do the opposite, and spend $100M because nobody had the flash of insight needed to turn it into a five-buck problem

• dctoedt 4y ago
  > I wonder how often they do the opposite [From my contract-drafting course materials:] The parties in a 2020 Vermont supreme court case might have been better served if they had done periodic check-in calls — in that case: - In a project to rebuild a railroad bridge, a subcontractor was supposed to handle one aspect of the project. - The subcontractor encountered an unexpected problem. - The subcontractor spent weeks trying to fix the problem — and billed the prime contractor an extra $120,000 for its efforts. - At trial, however, it came out that — for only $9,600 — there had been a simpler way to solve the problem. - If the prime contractor and subcontractor had just talked to one another — perhaps using the SPUR agenda, discussed at 7.2.6 — they just might have solved the problem sooner, at much-lower cost (and without having to go to litigation). See Construction Drilling, Inc. v. Engineers Construction, Inc., 2020 VT 38 ¶¶ 6-7, 236 A.3d 193, 196-97 (2020) (affirming denial of subcontractor’s breach-of-contract claim). https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14405606239041277439 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=144056062390412... [The SPUR agenda is a general-purpose meeting agenda: Status; Problems; Uncertainties; Risks.]