New Jersey Construction Law Decision Examines Prompt Payment Act
One of the most difficult problems in New Jersey construction law for contractors and subcontractors is getting paid. Fortunately, a powerful remedy exists in the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act. A recent appellate court decision examined
the New Jersey Prompt Payment Act in the case of Jo-Med Contracting Corp. vs. City of Linden.
Background
The City of Linden contacted Jo-Med to submit a bid for emergency repair work on approximately 20 feet of sewer repair, together with approximately 30 feet of related curb replacement. Jo-Med submitted a bid for $25,000 based on the job description provided by the City engineer; the bid stated that the cost would be higher if Jo-Med ran into unforeseen problems not apparent in the City’s description, in which case it would bill the City on a time and materials basis. Jo-Med was awarded the contract. The City’s engineer told Jo-Med’s owner that he would “work with him for additional charges to finish the work.”
New Jersey Lawyers Blog


to get paid: New Jersey’s
to use
implications for contractors. The decision is published, so it is precedent for future cases in which contractors challenge the award of New Jersey construction contracts by state and local governments. In this post I won’t dwell on the details of which contractor was right and which was wrong, but rather I’ll focus on the Appellate Division’s examination of the procedures followed, which is a cautionary tale about the ability of New Jersey construction contractors to meaningfully object to the award of public contracts.
litigation process, but still provide an enforceable dispute resolution process.
is to have a well-written contract.