Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
The subcontractor has moved to dismiss the general contractor's crossclaim.
The general contractor filed a crossclaim against the subcontractor, asserting only the defense that the general contractor was not liable to the corporation because the subcontractor's deficient work was the sole cause of the construction delays and the corporation's losses. After discovery, the corporation settled with the general contractor and dismissed the claims against it.
A corporation that was having a factory built filed a federal diversity action against the general contractor and an electrical subcontractor for the project. The complaint alleged breach of contract claims arising from construction delays and deficient electrical work that had caused the corporation significant financial losses.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The general contractor and the subcontractor were joined by the corporation as defendants, making them codefendants, not opposing parties.
C is incorrect. Regardless of whether the corporation's claim against the general contractor has been dismissed, as long as the crossclaim remains undetermined, the general contractor and the subcontractor remain in the suit for purposes of that claim.
D is incorrect. Under FRCP 13(g), a crossclaim may include a claim that the co-party is or may be liable for all or part of the claim asserted in the main action. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure often allow for the assertion of contingent claims to avoid multiple lawsuits. Furthermore, they encourage resolution of an entire controversy among the parties in one action, with a minimum of procedural steps.