You are here: / / Performance and Design Specification Contracts Defined

Performance and Design Specification Contracts Defined

This breach of contract case concerned the installation of “jet grout bottom seal” at a wastewater treatment plant.  In the course of its discussion, the Fourth Department explained the difference between performance and design specification contracts:

We … conclude that there are issues of fact concerning whether the contract was one of performance or design specification, thus precluding summary judgment with respect to the additional expenses that plaintiff allegedly incurred in remediating the jet grout bottom seal. “A performance specification [contract] requires a contractor to produce a specific result without specifying the particular method or means of achieving that result” (Fruin-Colnon Corp. v Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth., 180 AD2d 222, 229).“In other words, the contractual risk of nonperformance is upon the contractor” (id.). In contrast, a design specification contract is one in which “the owner specifies the design, materials and methods and impliedly warrants their feasibility and sufficiency” (id.).     “In that instance, the contractor’s guarantee . . . is limited to the quality of the materials and workmanship employed in following the owner’s design” (id. at 230). The proper characterization of a construction contract as one of either performance or design specification “depends upon the language of the contract as a whole,” and relevant factors in such an inquiry “include the nature and degree of the contractor’s involvement in the specification process, and the degree to which the contractor is allowed to exercise discretion in carrying out its performance” ​(id.).Here, the unresolved issues of fact with respect to those factors, particularly as to plaintiff’s ability to change the design without Falter’s approval, precludes a determination whether as a matter of law the subject contract is one of either performance or design specification, and thus whether plaintiff may recover expenses incurred in remediating the jet grout bottom seal.  Howard Baker, Inc. v C.O. Falter Construction Corp., et al, 1441, CA 12-00398, 4th Dept. 3-15-13

 

You might also like
County Properly Passed Legislation Phasing Out Tax Exemption
IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.
USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED THE SURFACE WATER DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
CLAIMANTS DID NOT ALLEGE WHEN THE ALLEGED INJURIES RELATED TO TOXIC CONTAMINATION WERE INCURRED, CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (FOURTH DEPT).
ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROPERTY-INSURANCE EXCLUSION FOR “DETERIORATION” APPLIED TO THE BULGING WALL CAUSED BY THE DETERIORATION OF BRICKS, PRECLUDING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second Floor Was Not an Elevation-Related Risk within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1)/Nature of Labor Law 200 Action Explained
Cheerleader Assumed the Risk of Practicing with an Injured Teammate

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Pre-Closing Inspection Disallowed Because There Was No Mention of a Pre-Closing... County Executive Has Authority to Commence Lawsuit Without Resolution from County...