All American Contracting Wins Dispute Over Seed Mixture Specifications!

Who wins the dispute over the seed mixture specifications?

Final answer: All American Contracting is likely to win the dispute and be entitled to the difference in cost between the two seed mixtures.

Explanation

In this case, there is a discrepancy between the notes on the landscaping plans and the seed mixture provided by All American Contracting. The Landscape Architect objects to the use of the standard seed mixture and directs All American to provide the more expensive modified seed mixture. All American provides the modified seed mixture under protest and asserts a claim for the difference in cost between the two mixtures.

The resolution of this dispute will depend on the interpretation of the contract and the applicable laws. The contract's general conditions state that specifications prevail over plans in case of a discrepancy. This means that if there is a conflict between the notes on the plans and the seed mixture specified in the contract, the specifications will take precedence.

All American Contracting can argue that they followed the contract's general conditions by providing the modified seed mixture as specified in the contract. They can also argue that it was the responsibility of the Landscape Architect to ensure that the plans and specifications were consistent before the bidding process.

On the other hand, the Landscape Architect may argue that All American should have brought the discrepancy to their attention before bidding. However, it can be argued that it is the responsibility of the Landscape Architect to provide accurate and consistent plans and specifications.

Considering the contract's general conditions and the responsibility of the Landscape Architect to provide accurate plans and specifications, it is likely that All American Contracting would win the dispute and be entitled to the difference in cost between the two seed mixtures.

← Creating a bevel face on the hammer head with cincinnati horizontal mill Proof by mathematical induction 1 01 n gt n 2 for n 1 466 →