A purchaser of allegedly defective property will quite naturally seek recourse against all involved parties. An obvious target would be a trade subcontractor whose workmanship is called into question. However, a recent Ohio case illustrates the strict limitations on such recovery.
A property purchaser sued a trade subcontractor to the builder-vendor for unworkmanlike performance of the subcontract. The buyer had no contractual relationship with the trade sub. Would the court impose a common-law duty of workmanlike performance on the subcontractor?
The other case in this issue involved a contractor’s voluntary assumption of administrative functions that were assigned to the government under the terms of a construction contract. The contractor assumed the functions in order to expedite delivery of materials to the job site. Would the contractor then assume the increased costs when, through no fault of the contractor, the administrative efforts went awry?
