Connection lost
Server error
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Tully Construction Co. Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Subcontractor sued for delay damages. The appellate court reversed a judgment for the subcontractor, finding it waived claims by not strictly complying with the contract’s specific notice provision, a condition precedent.
Legal Significance: Reinforces that contractual notice provisions, when framed as conditions precedent, demand strict, literal compliance; substantial performance or the other party’s actual knowledge of the underlying claim is insufficient to excuse non-compliance.
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Tully Construction Co. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 2003, Tully Construction Co. (defendant), the general contractor for a City of New York project, subcontracted with Schindler Elevator Corp. (plaintiff) to install elevators. The subcontract incorporated the primary contract’s Article 11. Article 11.1.2 required a party claiming delay damages to submit, within 45 days of first incurring damages and every 30 days thereafter, “verified statements of the details and amounts of such damages, together with documentary evidence of such damages.” Article 11.2 stipulated that failure “to strictly comply with the requirements of Article . . . 11.1.2 shall be deemed a conclusive waiver by the Contractor of any and all claims for damages for delay.” In 2010, Schindler sued Tully for delay damages. The trial court awarded Schindler $209,235.36, finding that letters and emails from Schindler constituted sufficient notice. Tully appealed, arguing Schindler waived its claim by failing to adhere to the notice provision. Schindler’s communications did not include verified statements of damage amounts or supporting documentary evidence as required.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the subcontractor waive its claim for delay damages by failing to strictly comply with a contractual notice provision that required submission of verified statements and documentary evidence of damages, where such provision was expressly designated as a condition precedent and stated that non-compliance resulted in waiver?
Yes, the plaintiff subcontractor waived its claim for delay damages because its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exc
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the subcontractor waive its claim for delay damages by failing to strictly comply with a contractual notice provision that required submission of verified statements and documentary evidence of damages, where such provision was expressly designated as a condition precedent and stated that non-compliance resulted in waiver?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong reminder of the enforceability of strict Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
Where a construction contract contains a condition precedent-type notice provision setting forth Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Legal Analysis
The appellate court, exercising its broad power to review determinations after a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Appellate court reversed a trial court’s award of delay damages to