Warning

Info

🏅 UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Main Electric, Ltd. v. Printz Services Corp.

980 P.2d 522 (Sup. Ct. Col. 1999)

tl;dr: Sub and general contractors had a deal where one of the conditions was that GC would pay SC “provided like payment” shall be paid by the owner. Before the project was complete, the owner went insolvent and couldn't pay the GC. The GC didn't pay the SC.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Subcontractor Plaintiff and Defendant general contractor contracted for work, and...

Holding:Reversed and remanded. Unless the contract clearly showed the parties’...

Main Electric, Ltd. v. Printz Services Corp.

Chat for Main Electric, Ltd. v. Printz Services Corp.
brief-225
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you