Question

The Phillies, L.P., the owner of the Philadelphia Phillies professional baseball team (Phillies), decided to build a new baseball stadium called Citizens Bank Park (the Project). The ­Phillies entered into a contract (Agreement) with Driscoll/ Hunt Joint Venture (DH) whereby DH would act as the Construction Manager of the Project. In that capacity, DH entered into multiple contracts with subcontractors to provide material and services in constructing the Project. One such subcontractor was Ramos/ Carson/ DePaul, Joint Venture (RCD), which was hired to install concrete foundations for the Project. The Project was beset with numerous delays and disruptions, for which RCD claimed it was owed additional compensation from DH and the Phillies. Subcontractor RCD sued the Phillies to recover the alleged compensation, alleging it was an intended beneficiary to the Phillies– DH Agreement, thus giving it rights to recover compensation from the Phillies. The Phillies argued that RCD was merely an incidental beneficiary to the Phillies– DH Agreement and could not recover compensation from the Phillies. Was RCD an intended or an incidental beneficiary of the Phillies– DH Agreement? Ramos/ Carson/ DePaul, a Joint Venture v. The Phillies, L.P., 2008 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. Lexis 282 (Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, 2008)


$1.99
Sales1
Views396
Comments0
  • CreatedAugust 12, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000