Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30, § 39N (2026)

Construction contracts; equitable adjustment in contract price for differing subsurface or latent physical conditions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 39N. Every contract subject to section forty-four A of chapter one hundred and forty-nine or subject to section thirty-nine M of chapter thirty shall contain the following paragraph in its entirety and an awarding authority may adopt reasonable rules or regulations in conformity with that paragraph concerning the filing, investigation and settlement of such claims:

If, during the progress of the work, the contractor or the awarding authority discovers that the actual subsurface or latent physical conditions encountered at the site differ substantially or materially from those shown on the plans or indicated in the contract documents either the contractor or the contracting authority may request an equitable adjustment in the contract price of the contract applying to work affected by the differing site conditions. A request for such an adjustment shall be in writing and shall be delivered by the party making such claim to the other party as soon as possible after such conditions are discovered. Upon receipt of such a claim from a contractor, or upon its own initiative, the contracting authority shall make an investigation of such physical conditions, and, if they differ substantially or materially from those shown on the plans or indicated in the contract documents or from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in work of the character provided for in the plans and contract documents and are of such a nature as to cause an increase or decrease in the cost of performance of the work or a change in the construction methods required for the performance of the work which results in an increase or decrease in the cost of the work, the contracting authority shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price and the contract shall be modified in writing accordingly.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Sutton Corp. v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 667 N.E.2d 838 (Mass. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sutton Corp. v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 667 N.E.2d 838 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 7× “5 By a letter dated April 27, 1981, Sutton advised the MDC that it had encountered a “changed condition” within the scope of G. L. c. 30, § 39N (1994 ed.), and requested permission to use a substitute system for compacting the soil.”

Nota Constr. Corp. v. Keyes Assocs., Inc., 694 N.E.2d 401 (Mass. App. Ct. 1998). “See G. L. c. 30, § 39N. Notwithstanding the presence of disputed facts, Keyes argues Nota’s claim is barred because the economic loss doctrine, Bay State-Spray & Provincetown S.”

Sutton Corp. v. Metro. Dist. Comm'n, 652 N.E.2d 627 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 4× “The MDC denied the existence of a changed soil condition and did not respond to Sutton’s request for formal approval of a substitute method.”

Glynn v. City of Gloucester, 401 N.E.2d 886 (Mass. App. Ct. 1980). “771, § 1A; 7 G. L. c. 30, § 39N, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

Glynn v. City of Gloucester, 487 N.E.2d 230 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “” See also G. L. c. 30, § 39N, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

Framingham Heavy Equip. Co. v. John T. Callahan & Sons, Inc., 807 N.E.2d 851 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004). “In any event, as the judge correctly noted, Framingham was legally entitled to be paid under G. L. c. 30, § 39N, for the changed site conditions.”

B. J. Harland Elec. Co. v. Granger Bros., 510 N.E.2d 765 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987). “XXII of the contract sets out, verbatim, the language of G. L. c. 30, § 39N, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

Celco Constr. Corp. v. Town of Avon, 26 N.E.3d 202 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “See G. L. c. 30, § 39N. The town refused Celco’s request, Celco filed a complaint in the Superior Court, and a judge of that court allowed the town’s motion for summary judgment.”

Skopek Bros. v. Webster Hous. Auth., 416 N.E.2d 1006 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981). “This is an action by which, in the only aspect still material (count 6 of the amended complaint), the plaintiff, as the general contractor on a project for the construction of housing for the elderly, sought an “equitable adjustment” (G. L. c. 30, § 39N, inserted by St. 1972, c.”

J.F. White Contracting Co. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Acting by & Through Its Dep't of Transp., Rail & Transit Div. (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026). · cites it 5× “White claims that, under G.L. c. 30, § 39N, and related contract provisions, it is entitled to an equitable adjustment in the contract price to cover extra costs incurred because conditions at culvert work sites differed substantially or materially from those shown on MassDOT’s…”

N.E. Bridge Contractors, Inc. v. City of Lawrence. (Mass. App. Ct. 2023). · cites it 4× “In addition, the contract incorporated by reference the Massachusetts Highway Department's Standard Specifications for Highways and Bridges, and those specifications recited the requirements of G. L. c. 30, § 39N. Under G. L. c. 30, § 39N, all contracts subject to G.”

Enfield Builders, Inc. v. the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Div. of Capital Asset Mgmt. & Maint. (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2× “G.L. c. 30, § 39N. EBI’s purported claim under G.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.