G&G should serve as a warning history for contracting parties. By deleting a provision from a draft contract, a party could be bound by a provision that it had not negotiated. The negotiating parties would be well advised to get advice before simply making a decision. Experienced construction consultants can see when a strike would create a breach and recommend an alternative provision that best protects the party`s interests. JCI argued that the reciprocal removal of interest rate determination constituted an agreement that no interest would be paid. G&G replied that the strike had done nothing but remove the interest provision from the draft subcontract and silence the final subcontract on the subject. During the course of the project, a payment dispute arose over payment for the submarine`s drilling work. It escalated into a trial and the jury ruled against the GC, which argued that the sub had accepted the modified terms by initializing and dating the changes as marked. The court of justice ruled against the GC and its guarantee and in favor of the subcontractor for the prejudiced interest of the legal rate of 9%.
The GoC and its guarantee appealed the judgment because both parties had clearly adopted the language of the original clause and believed that their intention was clear. A Missouri court of appeals has ruled on what may happen as a result of a dispute over troubled contract terms in a case over interest on outstanding balances. The results may surprise you. The GOC certainly argued that the removal of the interest rate clause was tantamoumous to the parties agreeing that no interest would be paid instead of the original language of the contract.