Could you explain why this is not a variant of Promissary estoppel.
The Superintendent has indicated he was going to suspend an existing contractual rights - AS4901 gives the Superintendent no leeway in the application of LD's other than by granting and extension of time.
The subcontractor then acted on this promise by abstaining from pursuing EOT claims (detrimental reliance) as the Superintendent then refused to grant the Extension of time once the subcontractor was time barred.
The Superintendent did not give notice that he was reinstating his right to apply LD's until after the contract work was completed. Is this not unconsionable conduct under the Trades Practices Act?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).