Your new used car suffers three dangerous blowouts within days of driving it off the lot. You return it to the dealer, who replaces the rear axle with a part it knows is defective. The dealer assures you that you can drive it, and you […]
Defective Work and Offers to Cure #2: Do Contractors Have a Common Law Right to Cure?
As discussed in our earlier post, inFisher v. Rondo Pools, 1 CA-CV 18-0343 (Ariz. App. 2019), the court upheld a verdict finding a contractor that performed defective work did not materially breach its contract because it made “reasonable assurances that it would cure the alleged […]
In Fisher v. Rondo Pools, 1 CA-CV 18-0343 (Ariz. App. 2019), an owner terminated a contractor mid-project for various defaults. The owner sued, and the jury found the contractor did not materially breach the contract because the contractor had offered to cure its defaults. On […]
Testing the Limits of Expert Testimony Pt. III: The Underlying Flaw of Fault Allocation in Construction Litigation.
The first ‘Testing the Limits of Expert Testimony’ post discussed inconsistency in barring experts from opining on ultimate issues like fault allocation, and the second post discussed jury reliability in allocating fault absent expert guidance. These posts assumed that fault allocation is appropriate in construction […]
Testing the Limits of Expert Testimony Pt. II: Is Your Guess As Good As Mine?
Imagine you contracted to build your dream house. Then tragedy struck. The surface bond material holding together the specialized concrete that kept your house in tact was negligently applied. You sued. And now you are at trial. You are assessing who is at fault for […]