/
Tuesday, February  26, 2013 Tuesday, February  26, 2013

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - PowerPoint Presentation

pasty-toler
pasty-toler . @pasty-toler
Follow
399 views
Uploaded On 2015-11-22

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 - PPT Presentation

Office of the General Counsel Northeastern University Matt McIntyre Esq Nick Bradley Esq Tales from the Trenches Pressure Points 2 Millions of dollars have been won and lost by folks over these points The University strives to be clear in all of its agreements on these critical points ID: 202171

million university contract agreement university million agreement contract services liability architect cost defective points agreements northeastern 000 damages provision

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Tuesday, February 26, 2013" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Tuesday, February 26, 2013Office of the General CounselNortheastern UniversityMatt McIntyre, Esq.Nick Bradley, Esq.

Tales from the TrenchesSlide2

Pressure Points2

Millions of dollars have been won and lost by folks over these points. The University strives to be clear in all of its agreements on these critical points.

NU Pressure

Points*

Warranties

C

onfidentiality

IP - Work

Product/Work for

Hire

Indemnity

Limits

of

Liability

Dispute Resolution and Governing Law

Termination

Use of NU’s Name

Amendments

*Non

-

templatesSlide3

Not My Employee!3

The University of Massachusetts and UMass Medical Center had clinical affiliation agreements for UMASS medical students to perform educational clinical rotations at the Medical Center.

The agreements were seemingly contradictory as to which entity is responsible for the students while they are on clinical.

In the case of malpractice by a resident, who has the liability—the University or the Hospital?Slide4

Cruising in the Rain!

4

A university entered into an agreement for a 3-hour cruise around Boston Harbor during one of the Tall Ships festivals. The event was marketed and several hundred people purchased tickets for the cruise.

By oversight, the contract was not sent to OGC and the agreement did not have an exit strategy in case of inclement weather.Slide5

Show Me the Money!5

Tuskegee University engaged Mallory & Evans to renovate one of its dormitories at a cost of $3.85 million.

Contract required “prior approval” by the Purchasing Department of Tuskegee if the cost of any work under a change order would exceed the total cost of $3.85 million. About $600,000 was lost!Slide6

No Way Out

6

A university entered into a lease for office equipment and related maintenance. However, the agreement automatically renewed without providing a termination clause. Eventually the equipment became outdated.Slide7

Really Bad Drafting

7

In 1985,

Cetus

Corp. collaborated with Stanford University to develop a process for determining the level of HIV in a person’s bloodstream.

A Stanford researcher joined the research efforts and signed separate agreements with Stanford and

Cetus

regarding assignment of his rights to inventions resulting from the collaborative research efforts.Slide8

Anybody Want a Ferrari?8

A college terminated a probationary, tenure-track faculty member.

The faculty member claimed that her “tenure-track appointment” was equivalent to an “appointment with tenure.”Slide9

The $18 million Motorcycle Ride

On April 1, 2012, Bobby

Petrino

, head football coach at the University of Arkansas, was involved in a motorcycle crash with his 25-year old mistress.

Petrino’s

employment contract contained a multi-million dollar severance package in the event that he was terminated without

cause.

How could the University terminate

Petrino

for his behavior without paying his guaranteed $18 million severance?

9Slide10

“Moral Turpitude” clause saves the day!

10

The University protected itself by including a “moral turpitude” clause in Petrino’s employment contract which provided grounds for termination.

Petrino’s

morally questionable conduct and misleading statements cost him more than $18 million remaining on his contract.

It was quite an expensive joy ride.Slide11

Sinking Stadium11

The Project

A new $50 million multi-use stadium is 70% complete. In eight months, the seats will all be filled for the football team’s home opener. After that, more football, soccer, lacrosse, and outdoor concerts are scheduled.

The Problem

The University notices horizontal cracking in the concrete support columns. Investigation by structural engineers reveals the stadium is sinking under its own weight at six support columns.

Costs are expected to exceed $8 million.Slide12

Who assumed the risk for the structural failures?12

The contract between the University and the Architect used the American Institute of Architects (AIA) standard form agreement. The contract included

3 troubling provisions

:

Mutual Waiver of Consequential Damages

Exclusive Remedy

Limitation of LiabilitySlide13

Mutual Waiver of Consequential Damages13

The Architect and the

[University]

waive consequential damages for claims, disputes or other matters in question arising out of or relating to this Agreement

.”

Impact of the Provision

The University cannot recover the following costs:

$2 million in lost future profits

$800,000 incurred because of increased interest rates

$200,000 cost of the forensic engineers’ investigation

$1 million delay claim by the contractorSlide14

Exclusive Remedy14

In the event any of the services of the Architect performed under this Agreement are adjudged to fail to meet the standard of ordinary care…such services shall be deemed ‘Defective Services.’ The Architect shall re-perform all such ‘Defective Services’ at the Architect’s sole cost and expense, and such re-performance shall be the owner’s sole and exclusive remedy for such ‘Defective Services.’”

Impact of the Provision

Architect only required to re-perform defective services

Services must be “adjudged” to be defective

Architect’s risk of loss is the design value ($100,000) v.

University’s risk is estimated at $7.9 millionSlide15

Limitation of Liability15

…the

extent

of the Architect’s liability to the Owner for any and all claims and damages recoverable under the terms of this Agreement is limited to the fee actually paid by the Owner to the Architect under this Agreement.”

Impact of the Provision

$2 million liability cap

$6 million shortfall for the UniversitySlide16

QuestionsOffice of the General CounselNortheastern University

378 Columbus Place

Boston, MA 02115

Tel: (617) 373-2157

http://www.northeastern.edu/legal/

16Slide17

These materials are the sole property of Northeastern University. The information contained in these materials is for the informational and educational use of members of the Northeastern University community only. These materials are not intended as and cannot be construed as legal advice on any matter or for any purpose. Northeastern

University expressly disclaims all responsibility and liability for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of any of the information contained on this site.

17