For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

May 7, 2019

Ruling should put an end to confusion over prompt-payment laws

California has had construction-related prompt-payment laws on its books for some time. But until recently there’s been confusion over when certain exceptions apply.

Garret D. Murai

Partner
Nomos LLP

Garret is the editor of the California Construction Law Blog at www.calconstructionlawblog.com.

See more...

Ruling should put an end to confusion over prompt-payment laws

CONSTRUCTION CORNER

California contractors and project owners were in a pickle. Although who was in a pickle depended on who you asked.

California has had construction-related prompt-payment laws on its books for some time. These laws, scattered in the state's Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code, generally provide deadlines by which project owners must ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Contracts

Martin Brothers Construction Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction Inc.

General contractor who withholds subcontractor’s payment related to disputed additional work is not subject to mandatory penalties for violating ‘prompt payment’ statute.

Government

East West Bank v. Rio School Dist.

Public works contractor may only recover attorney fees on claim for which they are allowed when there are no common issues with other claims.

Civil Procedure

United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 8814(c) applies where 'good faith dispute exists over a statutory or contractual precondition to that payment.'



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.