Craig Jackson – April 23, 2024

In the ongoing dispute between Envirolink, Inc. and Currituck County, the complexities of the case are detailed in over 300 pages of documentation. To aid readers in navigating this extensive legal matter, we have dissected the key arguments presented by both parties. We begin with Envirolink’s defenses, followed by Currituck County’s defenses. Blackwater Reports remains neutral in this matter and provides the complete complaint for readers to analyze independently.

The First Amendment to the Independent Contractor Agreement between Currituck County and Envirolink, Inc. outlines modifications to their existing contract for utility operation, management, and maintenance services at the Moyock Wastewater Treatment Plant. The key changes include adding two Mobile MBR wastewater plants operating until repairs are completed, clarifying compensation, and assigning responsibility for fines and penalties related to the Mobile MBR wastewater plants to Envirolink. All other terms and conditions of the original agreement remain unchanged. This amendment was executed on August 27, 2019, by representatives of both parties.

In response to the County’s Counterclaim, Envirolink, Inc. presents its defenses and replies as follows:

First Defense: Failure to State a Claim Envirolink argues that the Counterclaim fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted and should be dismissed according to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Reply and Second Defense Envirolink addresses each allegation of the Counterclaim individually, either admitting or denying them as appropriate. Where necessary, Envirolink provides context or clarification to the allegations and asserts its defenses accordingly.

Third Defense: County’s Breaches Envirolink contends that the County’s counterclaims are barred by its own material breaches of the agreements between the parties. It cites specific instances of alleged breaches by the County, including wrongful termination of agreements and failure to pay for reconditioning costs.

Fourth Defense: Impossibility of Performance/Frustration of Purpose Envirolink asserts that any non-performance on its part was due to conditions created or controlled by the County, such as delays in ordering supplies and faulty power supply to facilities, which hindered its ability to fulfill contractual obligations.

Fifth Defense: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Envirolink argues that the County’s claims should be barred due to its breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which prevented Envirolink from receiving the benefits of the agreements.

Sixth Defense: Doctrines of Waiver, Estoppel, and Unclean Hands Envirolink claims that the County’s claims should be barred by doctrines such as waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands, citing the County’s actions or failures to act that contributed to the dispute.

Seventh Defense: Unjust Enrichment Envirolink contends that the County’s claims should be barred or offset by the principle of unjust enrichment, as the County received services without payment for over two years.

Eighth to Thirteenth Defenses Envirolink asserts additional defenses, including failure to provide requisite notices, failure to mitigate damages, recoupment and setoff rights, applicability of the economic loss rule, and lack of damages suffered by the County.

Envirolink requests the dismissal of the County’s Counterclaim, judgment in its favor on its own claims, costs and expenses, trial by jury, and any other relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

In response to Envirolink’s claims, Currituck County has raised several affirmative defenses.

First Defense: They argue that Envirolink’s complaint fails to state a valid claim for relief and should be dismissed.

Second Defense: They claim that Envirolink is estopped from raising certain claims due to its failure to address identified deficiencies.

Third Defense: Currituck County asserts that Envirolink failed to mitigate damages, which should limit any potential recovery.

Fourth Defense: They argue that Envirolink waived its rights by continuing to operate despite non-payment and conversations indicating payment would not be made until certain conditions were met.

Fifth Defense: Currituck County alleges that Envirolink failed to comply with legal duties imposed by law, thus absolving the County of liability.

Sixth Defense: They claim that Envirolink did not provide proper notice of breach as required by their contract.

Seventh Defense: Currituck County disputes the accuracy of Envirolink’s claimed damages, asserting that they do not owe the amounts sought.

Eighth Defense: They argue that Envirolink’s material breach of contract excuses any payment obligation by the County.

Ninth Defense: They invoke the defense of laches due to Envirolink’s delay in pursuing the claim.

Tenth Defense: Currituck County alleges that Envirolink acted with unclean hands, thus precluding recovery.

Finally, they reserve the right to assert additional defenses as necessary.