|
Volume 6 - Number 45 | November 17, 2008
|
EDITOR'S NOTES
Communication technology is a beautiful thing. Because of it, we’re able to stay in touch with friends, family, business associates, etc. It allows some of us to work from home offices and other remote and non-office locations. It also can be a very transparent form of communication – it always leaves a virtual paper trail. The downside to communication technology, such as e-mail and text messaging, is that we often assume that the message gets through on time and that the gist and tone are interpreted correctly.
In this week’s first case, a bidder e-mailed its on-time proposal to the procuring agency. Unfortunately, the bidder had the wrong e-mail address. It filed a bid protest, blaming the agency for the error, when in fact, it should have picked up the phone to confirm that the bid had been received. In the end, it took the Comptroller General to sort out the mixed messages.
In this week’s other cases, we look at decisions from two state supreme courts. In Georgia, the high court considered whether a calculated cost of repair required a determination of fair market value for a claim for defective construction. And in New York, the court considered how far an indemnity clause can reach.
|
|
NEW YORK HIGH COURT ENFORCES INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE
Indemnity for a workplace accident can be split between culpable parties, rules a state high court. One party can enforce an indemnity clause against another party so long as the clause does not claim to indemnify the first party for its own negligence.
|
|
