Abstracts – Browse Results

Search or browse again.

Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 11 results ...

Arditi, D and Gutierrez, A E (1991) Factors Affecting U.S. Contractors' Performance Overseas. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 27–46.

Beliveau, Y J, Snyder, D A and Vorster, M C (1991) DBE Programs—New Model. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 176–92.

Echeverry, D, Ibbs, C W and Kim, S (1991) Sequencing Knowledge for Construction Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 118–30.

Eldin, N N (1991) Management of Engineering/Design Phase. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 163–75.

Glavan, J R and Tucker, R L (1991) Forecasting Design‐Related Problems—Case Study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 47–65.

Hinze, J and Antal, T (1991) Construction Contract Provisions for Preservation of Artifacts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 106–17.

Laufer, A and Shohet, I M (1991) Span of Control of Construction Foreman: Situational Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 90–105.

Morad, A A and Beliveau, Y J (1991) Knowledge‐Based Planning System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 1–12.

Nicholls, R (1991) Sandwich‐Barrel Shell Construction by Inflation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 131–47.

Thomas, H R, Smith, G R and Wright, E D (1991) Legal Aspects of Oral Change Orders. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 148–62.

  • Type: Journal Article
  • Keywords: Change orders; Legal factors; Court decisions; Contracts; Contract management; Owners; Contractors;
  • ISBN/ISSN: 0733-9364
  • URL: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1991)117:1(148)
  • Abstract:
    This paper describes the legal aspects of oral change orders or directives. It provides basic criteria for an owner, contract administrator, or contractor to determine if an oral directive is valid, entitling the contractor to additional compensation. The criteria are based on common law rules extracted from a review of more than 70 appellate court cases. The rules provide that for an oral directive to be valid, there must be no statutes requiring a written change, the owner must have knowledge of the work, and he must know that the contractor is expecting compensation for the additional work. A promise to pay cannot be rescinded. Other aspects discussed include proper or apparent authority and waiver. The case law review revealed substantial consistency in the application of these rules, and no discernible differences were found between the public and private sectors. The rules are arranged in an easy‐to‐follow flowchart, and numerous case citations are included. Recommended practices are also included.

Yeh, Y, Hsu, D and Kuo, Y (1991) Expert System for Diagnosing Damage of Prestressed Concrete Pile. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 117(01), 13–26.