In a fee-simple dispute between an...

In a fee-simple dispute between an A/E firm and a general contractor who retained the A/E for work forward a renovation project, a fresh York court ruled that the contractor could not rely forward its agreement with the possessor to enforce a provision in its contract with the A/E calling for the A/E's unconditional tenure to be a percentage of the "cost of construction."
The contractor argued that the disputed name meant that the A/E's feud would be calculated in the same manner as the contractor's agreement with the possessor which did not include fiefs as reimbursable costs.
The contractor's position