Not Ready to Settle: Never Commit Unless You Mean It

by Adam Baker on September 29, 2012

If you’re ever been a plaintiff or a defendant, you know that a lot of lawyer time can be spent outside the courtroom trying to get to a settlement. Settlement negotiations can go south for a lot of reasons, but there’s one great way to help get to a deal that you’re satisfied with.

Get to the Right Settlement Deal: What Not to Do

You’ll never get stuck with a settlement that you don’t like unless you agree to it. This is what happened to a Defendant in Killick Fisheries v Atlantic Treasure Seafoods Limited et al., 2012 NLTD(G) 69. This is not a construction case – the parties were involved in the commercial fishery – but the background facts don’t matter except to say that it was a contract dispute over monies owing.

The dispute was ongoing for some years and involved multiple parties and back-and-forth claims for relatively low amounts of money. A few years in it seems that the Defendant offered to settle for $7000. The Plaintiff countered, asking for twice as much at $13,500. A month or so later, Defendant’s lawyer rejected the $13,500 and offered the Plaintiff an even $10,000. The Plaintiff thought about it for about two weeks and finally accepted it, albeit with a little quibbling about the details.

But the problem was that the Defendant had done something you should never do in settlement negotiations: He put an offer on the table he didn’t really want to agree to.

As a result, the Defendant instructed his lawyer to attempt to back away from the $10,000 offer, even though it had already been accepted in principle by the other side. This error cost the Defendant even more in legal fees, since the Plaintiff brought a successful action to enforce the settlement. In the end the Defendant was required to pay the $10,000, its own lawyer’s fees for time spent on litigation and negotiation, and also ordered by the Court to pay a significant portion of the Plaintiff’s legal costs for behaving “disingenuously” and taking an “obstructionist approach”.

Never instruct your lawyer to make an offer that you aren’t committed to. Judges take a dim view of parties who renege on a settlement deal.

Get to the Right Settlement Deal: What to Do

Medium-to-large size construction industry players deal with contract disputes on a regular basis: Extras, delays, bonuses and penalties, unpaid builders, unpaid suppliers, unpaid subcontractors, defective workmanship, defective materials, flawed designs, warranties, botched tenders, you name it. So getting bogged down in any one dispute is undesirable. Some disputes will only be resolved in front of a judge, but most of them can be settled without the expense of a trial.

Do be honest and up front with your lawyer and with yourself. Work with your lawyer to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of your case and the costs and benefits of proceeding with litigation to decide on an acceptable range of outcomes. Approach the negotiation with realistic expectations. Work with your lawyer to put your best foot forward on the facts and law and don’t be afraid to negotiate hard for the deal you want in the upper end of your acceptable range.

And only tell your lawyer to make or take an offer if you’re committed to following through on it. Otherwise you could find yourself in front of an unimpressed judge.

{ 0 comments }

Like many professions, lawyers in Canada are governed and regulated by a provincial regulating body. In this province, lawyers are regulated by the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador. But in addition to their regulating body, many professions also have one or more professional associations which operate at a national level. The largest such professional association for lawyers in Canada is the Canadian Bar Association.

One of the most valuable services provided by the CBA is that it facilitates lawyers’ professional development via publications, continuing legal education seminars and materials, and by bringing together professionals in specialized areas of practice through membership in a number of law practice Sections.

I maintain a membership in the Construction Law Section, which is organized for lawyers serving clients who are stakeholders in the construction sector. At the national level, the Construction Law Section has been one of the more active sections, which is likely due to the relative size of the construction industry in the Canadian economy as well as its character (which lends itself to disputes between parties).

In addition to their newsletter for members, the Construction Law Section also holds a national conference every two years which typically canvasses developments in industry and the law that are relevant to lawyers working in the area of construction law.

This year the conference is going to be held here in Newfoundland and Labrador at St. John’s, this coming September 28-29. The theme which has been adopted is “Looking to the Future of Construction”. Details on the conference have not yet been finalized, but if I had to guess the conference might likely include some discussion of the fallout from the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Tercon Contractors in the area of tendering and procurement, and, judging from the theme, perhaps also some discussion of “green” building, which is slowly making inroads in Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I’d encourage any practitioners with a significant portion of the practice taken up in construction clients to consider attending the conference. I’ll see you there.

(Full disclosure: At the time of writing I sit on the Executive Committee for the CBA Newfoundland and Labrador Branch. Go team.)

Nota bene: For those interested in the lex Americana, the American counterpart to the CBA, the American Bar Association, also has a professional forum focused on construction law practitioners, called the ABA Forum on the Construction Industry, which had their annual meeting just last month. American lawyer Matt DeVries participated in assembling that conference’s Construction Law Update, which he discusses on his website.

{ 1 comment }

New Condominium Act for Newfoundland and Labrador in 2012

February 22, 2012

Newfoundland and Labrador has had condominium legislation since the mid-1970s, following the arrival of condominium developments in other Canadian jurisdictions in the 1960s. As of December 1, 2011, the condominium legislation in force in this province – the Condominium Act, RSNL 1990, c C-29, as amended [Rep. by 2009, c C-29.1, s. 92 – Dec [...]

Read the full article →

The Dark Side of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Construction Courts

November 9, 2011

It’s useful to remember that before she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1989 and developed a reputation in legal circles for her Charter decisions, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin researched and wrote in the area of construction law. Revisiting these past interests, McLachlin CJC wrote an article for an ADR newsletter not [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: Tercon Contractors v British Columbia

February 4, 2011

Tercon Contractors Ltd. v British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2006 BCSC 499, revd 2007 BCCA 592, revd 2010 SCC 4, [2010] 1 SCR 69, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2010/2010scc4/2010scc4.html This case, similar the earlier case of M.J.B., considered the effect of an exclusion clause in the context of an acceptance of a non-compliant bid. The exclusion clause [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: Double N Earthmovers v Edmonton

January 22, 2011

Double N Earthmovers Ltd. v Edmonton (City), 213 AR 81 (ABQB), affd [2005] AJ No 221 (ABCA), affd 2007 SCC 3, [2007] 1 SCR 116, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2007/2007scc3/2007scc3.html This case is addresses the issue of compliance with the terms of a call for tenders. It was a five-four split at the level of the Supreme [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: Naylor Group v Ellis-Don

January 19, 2011

Naylor Group Inc. v Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., [1996] OJ No 3247, 31 CLR (2d) 195 (ON Gen Div), revd [1999] 119 OAC 182 (ONCA), vard 2001 SCC 58, [2001] 2 SCR 943, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc58/2001scc58.html This is not a tender dispute between an owner and a bidder, but between a general contractor and a subcontractor [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: Martel Building v Canada

January 16, 2011

Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: M.J.B. Enterprises v Defence Construction

January 14, 2011

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v Defence Construction (1951) Ltd., [1994] 164 AR 399 (ABQB), affd [1997] 196 AR 124 (ABCA), revd [1999] 1 SCR 619, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/1999/1999scr1-619/1999scr1-619.html Facts The respondent, Defence Construction (‘Defence’), invited tenders for construction of a water pumping and distribution system on a Canadian Forces Base in Alberta. It received four bids, [...]

Read the full article →

Case Brief: R. v Ron Engineering

December 6, 2010

R. (Ont.) v Ron Engineering & Construction (Eastern) Ltd., [1979] 24 OR (2d) 332 (ONCA), revd [1981] 1 SCR 111, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/1981/1981scr1-111/1981scr1-111.html This case is understood to be the leading case on the law of bidding and tendering in Canada. Facts The province of Ontario (the “owner”) retained an engineering consulting firm to prepare [...]

Read the full article →