A recent Legal Notes column referenced the case, Priestly Demolition vs. Walsh Construction.

Edward Lynde, a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, used the case to illustrate the consequences when one party fails to read and understand their contractual obligations.

“Parties should act in good faith, clearly communicate with each other, and attempt to work collaboratively to overcome issues to the benefit of all involved in the project,” Lynde concluded.

A comment was received from Romario Rodrigues, a construction project manager holding both law and engineering degrees. He pointed out the case illustrates the absence of proper communication and collaboration between Priestly and Walsh, both before and during project execution.

Had there been better information sharing between the two parties, the issue of an existing duct bank, mistakenly demolished, would have come up and could have been addressed. In fact, a Priestly witness expressed concerns over a “lack of information.”

Lynde addressed Rodrigues’ thoughts concerning the Priestly and Walsh dispute, telling the Daily Commercial News, “There is no substitution for clear and concise contracts.”

British architect Robert Adam suggests a possible starting point for miscommunication.

He writes too often each profession tries to carve out its own territory.

“Often it comes together badly.”

This reveals the importance of trust and transparency by all project parties.

“Complex projects involving many contractors and subcontractors and thousands of deliverables, combined with fragmented processes, have given rise to the systemic issue of a lack of trust and transparency in the industry,” writes Lukas Olbrich, chief executive of construction management software developer Sablono. “Construction projects are fraught with possibilities for misunderstanding and miscommunication.” 

Olbrich speaks of the need to break down information silos. Providing one version of the truth will then foster greater trust between all parties.