Question

Turner Construction entered into a contract to provide general construction of Granby Towers. Turner then entered into a subcontract with Universal to install precast concrete floors in the Granby Towers construction project. The general construction contract was incorporated by reference into the subcontract. The contract between Turner and Universal contained a “pay-when-paid provision” that conditioned any payments to Universal on Turner’s first receiving payment from Universal. Due to the economic downturn, financing for the project fell through. Universal had substantially completed all its work by that time, and it sought payment of $885,507 from Turner, which refused to pay because it had not received any payment from the owner of the project. Turner asked the court for summary judgment on Universal’s breach-of-contract claim. Should the court’s grant of summary judgment be upheld? Why or why not? [Universal Concrete Products v. Turner Construction Co., 4th Cir. Case No. 09- 1569 (2010).]

Answer 1

As per scenario mentioned above, the agreement has clearly stated “pay-when-paid provision” which means unless Turner would not receive the payment from the owner of the project they cannot make the payment to the subcontractor which is Universal.
Although the work has been completed by Universal, they cannot claim the payment as they are in agreement with Turner about the payment clause. Judgements are always done on the basis of documents/ contracts/ valid proofs in court of law. If turner asks for summary of judgement presenting all the documentation of the contracts/sub-contracts & prove that payment has still not made to them by the owner, then yes court can validate the case & verify the findings & provide the judgement. All the documents related to payment & valid communication about the payments along with copies of contracts/sub-contracts needs to be presented in court of law so that the judgement can be upheld.