Source: http://wraylaw.com/articles/lest-we-forget-the-design-sufficiency-law/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:58:13+00:00

Document:
It is well-settled, but apparently not widely known, that the contractor is not the guarantor of the plans and specifications drawn by the owner’s expert engineer or architect. This governing principle is the cornerstone, upon which the traditional relationship between the owner and contractor (as well as between the contractor and subcontractor) is built. The contractor’s duty is to build according to the plans and specifications, furnished by the owner; and the contractor’s warranty is limited thereby in scope. Our industry is steadily losing sight of many of the core principles which guide our industry; and the importance of this principle cannot be overstated.
In the State of Louisiana, a civil jurisdiction, we define law to include legislation and custom.[v] In the 1950’s, law was defined as “a solemn expression of legislative will.”[vi] Louisiana is unique, in that our law is primarily based upon statutes and codes, such as the Louisiana Civil Code; the Louisiana Revised Statutes, including the Louisiana Civil Code Ancillaries, published in Title 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes; and the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.
After the enactment of La. R.S. 9:2771 in 1958, it should come as no surprise that owners, especially public owners, immediately attempted to disclaim; disavow; and/or avoid La. R.S. 9:2771, by inserting contract language to the contrary in their bid specifications. So in 1960, those same industry leaders passed the first amendment to La. R.S. 9:2771, adding the third sentence: “The provisions of this Section shall not be subject to waiver by the contractor.”[x] Thus, La. R.S. 9:2771 serves as an embodiment of Louisiana public policy.
It is, admittedly, amazing how often owners, especially public owners, even today, some 60 years later, attempt to shift the risk of the sufficiency of the plans and specifications to the contractor, whether directly or through devices that have that effect. Freedom of contract is not without limits; and contracts entered into, in violation of public policy, are null and void and unenforceable.[xiii] Ignoring a provision of law, that so limits the rights to contract away the owner’s risk, spawns unnecessary disputes and costly litigation. The industry must redouble its efforts to educate its members and design professionals, as well as other owner representatives; stand against those who would seek to erode these basic rights; and protect the industry’s longstanding interest, in the proper scope and interpretation of Louisiana law and public policy.
Russel W. Wray, partner, and Jacob A. Altmyer, associate, Wray & Associates © 2019. Questions or comments can be directed to Mr. Wray, at russwray@wraylaw.com, or Mr. Altmyer, at jacobaltmyer@wraylaw.com. Visit www.wraylaw.com for further information. Law office located in St. Francisville, La.
This article is informational and should not be used as legal advice. One should independently consult with an attorney, prior to relying on any of the information provided herein.
[i] With regard to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s adoption of the Spearin doctrine, see, e.g., Louisiana Shipbuilding Co. v. Bing Dampskibsaktieselskab, 158 La. 548, 104 So. 364 (1925); Keller Constr. Corp. v. George W. McCoy & Co., 239 La. 522, 540, 119 So.2d 450 (1960).
[ii] U.S. v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 39 S.Ct. 59, 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918).
[iii] U.S. v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 137, 39 S.Ct. 59, 61, 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918) (emphasis added and footnotes omitted).
[iv] U.S. v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 39 S.Ct. 59, 63 L.Ed. 166 (1918).
[v] La. C.C. art. 1 (“The sources of law are legislation and custom.”).
[vi] See Article 1 of the Louisiana Civil Code of 1870; see also La. C.C. art. 2.
[vii] See La. R.S. 9:2771 (as amended by Acts 1960, No. 84, § 1, and by Acts 2001, No. 179, § 1).
[viii] See, e.g., Pittman Constr. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 178 So.2d 312 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1965); City of Covington v. Heard, 428 So.2d 1132 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983); Sisters of the Good Shepard v. Quinn Constr. Co., 225 So.2d 225 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969); Bernard v. State Dept. of (Highways) Transp. & Development, 93-1376 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/01/94), 640 So.2d 694.
[ix] See, e.g., City of Covington v. Heard, 428 So.2d 1132, 1134 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1983); see also Pittman Constr. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 178 So.2d 312 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1965); Sisters of the Good Shepard v. Quinn Constr. Co., 225 So.2d 225 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969); Bernard v. State Dept. of (Highways) Transp. & Development, 93-1376 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/01/94), 640 So.2d 694.
[x] See Acts 1960, No. 84, § 1.
[xi] See City of Covington v. Heard, 428 So.2d 1132 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1983); see also Sisters of the Good Shepard v. Quinn Constr. Co., 225 So.2d 225 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969).
[xii] See New Orleans Unity Soc. of Practical Christianity v. Standard Roofing Co., 224 So.2d 60 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1969) (serving as an example of where the contractor was involved in the preparation of the plans and specifications and, thus, was not entitled to immunity).
[xiii] See, e.g., La. C.C. art. 7; La. C.C. art. 1971.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1
 art. 2
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 7
 art. 1971