255.05 (bonds) Flashcards
When are payment & performance bonds mandatory?
Construction or REPAIR of a public building or public work. LG can exempt for under $200k.
———–
~confirmed 255.05.
What additional language to 255.05 is designed to reduce common-law bond arguments?
“Regardless of form” all payment bonds for public works are deemed statutory bonds.
If the Court’s acknowledged common law bonds on 255.05 (which they do not) what’s the test to determine a common law vs. statutory bond?
Statutory bonds = meet 255.05 minimum
Common law bonds = excess.
Payment bonds on public construction are always statutory. BUT when might a Claimant not be held to the 1 year S/L?
Claimant was ignorant of its rights & bond was facially deficient (ex. no S/L stated) or not recorded.
How to courts construe bonds?
Against Surety, in favor of laborer.
Why did laborers historically try to have a statutory bond deemed common law?
1 = P+P statutory bond
2 = Wrongful death
2/3 = MESs
4 = Torts + oral Ks + taking.
5 = written Ks (inc common law bonds [FS 95.11 (2)(b)]) + improper ordinance
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- How did legislature bring clarity to the CL/Statutory debate?
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- Payment bonds "shall not under any circumstances be converted into common law bonds."
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- For whose benefit are P+P bonds made?
Owner only. It is directed only to those in privity w/ Owner.
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- Sub is not a party to the Payment bond & the bond was not written for his benefit. Why may sub claim under P+P bond?
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- He's a 3rd party beneficiary.
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- Why does being a 3rd party beneficiary to the P+P bond work to sub's advantage?
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- Due to a lack of privity, P+P bonds are inherently common law bonds. As to subs, there is no requirement that P+P have notice & time limit provisions.
?????--------REMOVE---------????? ----------- 255.05 P+P bonds ----------- Practically, how might sub implement this advantage?
255.05 P+P bonds
———–
P+P bond duly contains the notice & time limits.
As to Ktor, it is a P+P bond as it met the 255.05(2) requirement.
As to sub, that argument does not apply.
What did legislature add making the answer always to be a ‘statutory bond’?
The requisite payment bond shall not
under any circumstances be converted into
common law bonds.
———–
Remember - 255.05 applies to those in privity w/ Owner. Doesn’t apply to subs.
Unpaid supplier in public K didn’t get paid.
Can unpaid supplier claim vs. the bond even if unpaid supplier missed his deadline? He failed to comply w/ 255.05 notice & time requirements.
NO. “Not under any circumstances” is the bond converted to a common law bond.
———–
“The payment bond provisions shall be construed & deemed statutory payment bonds . . . & such bonds shall not under any circumstances be converted into
common law bonds.” § 255.05(4), Fla. Stat. (added in 2005).
What 4 provisions are not enforceable in a bond?
- 05 P+P bonds
- ———-
(1) Limits on classes protected,
(2) Restricts venue,
(3) Effects duration of the bond, or
(4) Adds conditions precedent to enforcement.
?????———–CONFLICT———–?????
S/L
?????———–CONFLICT———–?????
5 yrs - Performance bonds (comm law + stat)
1 yr - Payment bonds (comm law + stat)
