The original is litigate was whether Labor Law ( 220-d applied to a school district. According to the law, the advertised specifications for every contract should contain a provision stating the minimum hourly wage. This is a requir
The law in question has been found to dispense to cherish the public coffers from various incursions but not to protect the common soldier contractors who submit a pop the question under its provisions. The disquietude is that contractors would submit illegally low bids intentionally and then sue for recovery of the difference.
The second and determinative question was then whether the complainant could recover the amount of additional wages paid from the school district. Section 220-d does not explicitly provide for a private cause of action, and so recovery could be allowed only if a legislative intent to create such a remunerate of action was "fairly implied" in the legislative history. The plaintiff argued that fraction 220-d was intended to benefit contractors bidding on public deeds projects, but it was found to be questionable whether the notice requirement was intended to protect a contractor submitting a bid in contravention of the mandated prevailing wage. The court found thusly that even if the plaintiff were right, his claim would fail because a private cause of action would be incompatible with the u
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment