Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Citation
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-02-10
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
Full Text
1,361 chars¶ 13. Significantly, our most relevant precedent, DJ Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enterprises, Inc., 172 Vt. 239, 776 A.2d 413 (2001), supports a broad reading of the attorneys’-fee authorization consistent with its remedial purpose. In DJ Painting, a painting subcontractor brought a breach of contract and wrongful termination action against the general contractor and the owner. The subcontractor made no claim under the prompt payment act. On summary judgment, the claims against the general contractor were dismissed because the subcontractor failed to submit them to arbitration as required by the contract. We affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees to the contractor under § 4007(c) because the contractor was the substantially pre*357vailing party “in a ‘proceeding to recover any payment’ due under a construction contract.” Id. at 247, 776 A.2d at 420. It made no difference to this conclusion that the subcontractor’s theories of recovery were based on the common law — breach of contract and wrongful termination — and the contractor made no claim under the prompt payment act. Id. Nor was the contractor’s recovery reduced because of the nature of the subcontractor’s claims. Id. For the exact reason that the contractor was able to recover all of his attorneys’ fees in DJ Painting, the contractor should be able to recover all of his fees in this case.