Last month, we discussed the Spearin doctrine, which establishes
that a project owner impliedly warrants that plans and design
specifications will be adequate if the owner issues and the
contractor complies with the plans and specifications.1
As a result, a contractor can use the Spearin doctrine defensively
to avoid the consequences of defective plans and specifications or
offensively to bring a claim if the defective plans and
specifications cause its work to be more expensive, timely, or
difficult. The Spearin doctrine's applicability and longevity
have spawned a number of nuances and exceptions, some of which we
discuss in this month's article.
Since the Spearin doctrine's birth in 1918, the scope of the
doctrine has been the subject of many important legal decisions
that continue to define its use. Under the modern rule, for
example, the Spearin doctrine cannot be invoked by a contractor if
(1) the construction contract contains an enforceable avoidance
clause;
