Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
If the city cannot choose to not use a contractor that repeatedly makes claims against them, the potential exists for a contractor to take advantage of that.
Certainly the city should be allowed to consider the number of times a contractor has sued them in determining which contractor is the "best" contractor.
If the city screwed up knowingly, they would pay up. Something going to a lawsuit means that the matter of who screwed up is in dispute. It isn't worth it for anyone, including the city to go to court to fight a case they know they would lose.
In our dealings, there have been a few disputes about who is to blame, but most of them can be dealt with by offering to share the blame, and meeting in the middle. Its cheaper, easier and less risky than paying lawyers and fighting in court.
|
That's a pretty fanciful notion. There are casebooks full of examples where that certainly didn't happen.
As for the first two paragraphs, this isn't a 'consider how many times they've sued' standard. This is a 'you sued us once, you're done' standard. Nothing is being considered. If this accurately reflects that actual policy, it's nothing more than a bully tactic, which is an issue when utilized by a government entity.