Does Hindrance Have to Be Wrongful? When Delays Are Excusable Without Intentional Fault

In construction contracts, we often assume that delays are excusable only under extreme circumstances—like severe weather, unforeseen conditions, or obvious mistakes by one party. But what if the delay results from actions that aren’t intentional or wrongful? Would the hindered party still be excused from meeting deadlines?

The answer lies in a key principle: “Generally, whether a delay is excusable or non-excusable is a matter of contract.” How the contract defines these terms determines when a delay entitles a party to an extension, without penalties, even if the hindrance isn’t wrongful. This principle was at the heart of the 2009 case Daneshjou Co., Inc. v. Bullock, where Sandra Bullock, the well-known actress, halted construction due to structural and drainage issues.

Case Study: Daneshjou Co., Inc. v. Bullock

In Daneshjou, Sandra Bullock had contracted a builder for her new home and outbuildings, but concerns over drainage and structural issues led her to stop the work. Meanwhile, the builder’s construction manager argued that his ability to perform was hindered not only by Bullock’s intervention but by the builder’s delays in delivering plans and payments. Although Bullock’s actions were not wrongful, they delayed the manager’s ability to meet deadlines by affecting scheduling and material procurement.

The court ultimately ruled that the construction manager’s delays were excusable because his duties were materially hindered by factors beyond his control, regardless of wrongful intent. Here, the contract's terms determined the nature of delay: because excusable delays didn’t require wrongful prevention, the manager’s delayed performance was legally justified.

The Power of the Contract: What Defines Excusable Delays?

As seen in Daneshjou, the contract itself dictates whether a delay is excusable. This concept, sometimes called the “prevention doctrine,” asserts that the contract governs whether and how delays are excused, including cases where one party unintentionally hinders another. Without defining what constitutes an excusable delay, a project can encounter disputes, delays, or even legal battles.

The court’s perspective in Daneshjou aligns with broader case law like Metropolitan Paving Co. v. City of Aurora, where the contract’s terms allowed for delays caused by unforeseen actions or even preventative measures by the owner. These cases underscore that, as a contractual matter, excusable delays protect parties when hindrances, even well-intentioned ones, prevent them from timely performance.

Rethinking Responsibility in Construction Delays

In construction, whether delays are excusable is fundamentally a matter of contract. Project stakeholders—owners, contractors, and managers—benefit from clear terms around delay provisions, since even well-meaning actions by one party can lead to legally excusable delays for the other. With this understanding, project participants can better align expectations around timelines and responsibilities.

In Daneshjou Co., Inc. v. Bullock—a complex, high-profile case—Sandra Bullock’s contract played a decisive role. Although her intentions were protective, the impact on the project timeline excused the construction manager’s delays. For today’s projects, these nuances remind us: the contract is not just a guideline—it’s the foundation for determining accountability when delays arise, whether wrongful or not.