In Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc. v. GCT Venture, Inc., 285 A.D.2d.687, 28 N.Y.S.25, the Tribunal found, for example, that the subcontractors were prevented from taking a direct action because of additional costs caused by the owner`s delays. However, the liquidation agreement allowed the principal contractor to sue the project proponent on behalf of the subcontractor for the injuries he sustained as a result of the owner`s action. Such an agreement was not required to be part of the original subcontracting; the principal contractor was allowed to assume this responsibility through a separate liquidation agreement. Similarly, the no-delay clause did not prevent the subcontractor from concluding the liquidation contract with the contractor at a later date. Liquidation agreements consist of three fundamental elements: (1) the imposition of the liability of the general contractor for the increase in the costs of the subcontractor, which will provide the general contractor with a basis to take legal action against the owner; (2) a liquidation of liability at the amount of the general contractor`s recovery against the owner; and (3) a provision providing for the “transition” of this recovery to the subcontractor (Barry, Bette Led Duke, Inc. v. State of New York, 240 A.D.2d at 56). However, it is not necessary for the liquidation agreement to be part of the original subcontract and the principal contractor may assume this responsibility through a separate liquidation agreement (Schiavone Construction Co., Inc. v.

Triborough Bridge Tunnel Authority, 209 A.D.2d 598). In a case where a contractor enters into a liquidation contract with a subcontractor in order to liquidate any liability to him for damages owed to the owner of the transfer right that could be recovered against the owner on behalf of the contractor, the assumption of the contractor`s liability is clearly implicit in the agreement. In addition, legal action against the owner may be sued on behalf of the contractor, even if the contractor has not suffered direct damage. [3] Section 5001 of New York`s Civil Practice Law and Rules provides that a complainant may recover interest in a 9% case before the judgment. [79] This interest runs from the earliest date of the injury and may be significant in a serious case. In the current context, the rate is such that it may induce the defendant to settle his accounts. The statutory interest rate applies unless the parties have accepted another rate of bias in their contract. However, the parties must expressly agree that the agreed rate applies to the interests of prejudice. A normal interest provision in a loan agreement does not replace the statutory interest rate. [80] A party who breaches a loan contract may face a judgment requiring it to pay 9% of first-line interest on both principal and unpaid ordinary interest due under the loan agreement. The New York courts ruled that such a recovery did not constitute double circumcision. [81] The question is whether the interest rates mandated by the CPLR apply in international arbitrations in New York, even though the New York law is applicable.

[82] Subcontractors may be protected from damage caused by a landowner by an agreement with the contractor. The subcontractor and subcontractor may ensure that the subcontractor reimburses the subcontractor for the damage it suffers in the event of an owner`s fault, but only to the extent that the owner pays damages to the subcontractor for the damage suffered by the subcontractor. This type of liquidd damages agreement is recognized in both New York and the federal hazelnut courts.