Login NamePassword
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Construction: Oles Morrison

Subscriber content preview

Adjust font size: [+] [-]

March 7, 2008

How fair was the Mike M. Johnson case?

  • Last month's related court decision was more bad news for the owners of the construction firm: They must pay back their surety.
  • By J. TODD HENRY
    Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker

    mug
    Henry

    Since the state Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mike M. Johnson v. Spokane County in 2003, contractors and lawyers who represent them have been trumpeting the unfairness of the decision. Still, the construction industry has been unsuccessful in convincing our Legislature that the decision was wrong. And, therefore the industry's efforts to draft and have the Legislature pass an “anti-Mike Johnson” law have gained little traction.

    The popular debate about Johnson generally involves the court's evisceration of the century-old Washington concept of “prejudice” in any requirement to comply with the written notice requirements in a construction contract — and the question of whether the lack of compliance actually disadvantaged the project owner. That debate involves theoretical and historic aspects of contract law and considerations of the effect of legal precedent, concepts that have little to do with a true analysis of what is fair and what is not.

    . . .

    To read this story in full login or purchase a subscription.


    Previous columns:

    Search Stories
     Find:
     With:
     In:
     Depth:
     Sort by:
    Advanced options
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     


    Copyright ©2009 Daily Journal of Commerce, Inc. and djc.com.
    Comments? Questions? Contact us.
    Building Permits

     

    Email to a friend
    Print
    Comment
    Reprints
    Add to myDJC