In: Operations Management
In December 1992, Beys Specialty Contracting, Inc., contracted
with New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
for construction work. Beys subcontracted with Hudson Iron Works,
Inc., to perform some of the work for $175,000. Under the terms of
the subcontract, within seven days after the MTA approved Hudson’s
work and paid Beys, Beys would pay Hudson. The MTA had not yet
approved any of Hudson’s work when Beys submitted to the MTA
invoices dated May 20 and June 21, 1993. Without proof that the MTA
had paid Beys on those invoices, Hudson submitted to Beys an
invoice dated September 10, claiming that the May 20 and June 21
invoices incorporated its work. Beys refused to pay, Hudson stopped
working, and Beys paid another contractor $25,083 more to complete
the job than if Hudson had completed its subcontract. Hudson filed
a suit in a New York state court to collect on its invoice. Beys
filed a counterclaim for the additional money spent to complete
Hudson’s job. In whose favor should the court rule, and why? What
might be the measure of damages, if any?
Damages
The court awarded Hudson what it sought, and Beys appealed to a
state intermediate appellate court. This court reversed the award
of the trial court and remanded the case for the entry of a
judgment in favor of Beys. The appellate court pointed out that
there was no proof Beys was paid for Hudson's work. "In addition,
since it was also undisputed that none of Hudson's work had been
approved by the MTA when Beys submitted the invoices dated May 20,
1993, and June 21, 1993, Hudson was not entitled to payment because
. . . the subcontract conditioned payment upon a determination by
the MTA that Hudson's work was satisfactory." The court concluded
that "Beys did not breach the subcontract by refusing to comply
with Hudson's demand for payment." Finally, "Hudson stopped
performing under the subcontract after its demand for payment was
rejected, and . . . Beys paid $25,083 more to complete the job than
if Hudson had completed its subcontract. As a result, Beys is
entitled to a judgment on its first counterclaim against Hudson in
the sum of $25,083."
****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****