b'numberofotherplaintiffs,allsubcontractorsonahighschoolinMichigan City,Indiana.Thedefendantwasthegeneralcontractor. First,facts.Thegeneralcontractorenteredintoacontractfort he constructionofthehighschoolinFebruary,1970.Thatcontractprovided foraretentionof10%untilt hejobwas50%completedandaretent ionof 5%thereafter.Thegeneralcontractorenteredintosubcontracts,eachof whichprovidedfora10%retentionthroughoutthejob.Thereten tion clauseinthesubcontractsprovidedforpaymentoftheretentionwhent he workspecifiedinthesubcontracthasbeen"com approvedby(the) pleted, architectandfinalpaymentreceivedbythecontractor." Followingcompletionofthehighschoolthearchitectsfound75alleged defectsinthework,asaconsequenceofwhichtheschoolboardrefus edto paytheretentionduethegeneralcontractor.Thegeneralcont ractorin turnrefusedtopaytheretentiondueeachofthecont ractors,including MidlandEngineering. TheFederalDistrictCourtinIndianafoundthatMidlandEngineeringhad fullycompleteditssubcontractandthatt herewasnobasisforanyback chargebythegeneralcontractoragainstit baseduponworkmanship.The issueaddressedbythecourtwaswhetherthegeneralcontractorcouldrefuse topayMidlandEngineering(andtheothersubcontractors)solelybe c a use thegeneralcontractorhadnotreceivedpaymentfromtheowner,basedupon thecontractualprovisioninthesubcontractquotedabove.Thecourtheld infavorofMidlandEngineeringstating: "ClausessuchasParagraph15(quotedabove)arenotintended toprovidethecontractorwithaneternalexcusefornonpayment. Theyhavebeenconstruedbythecourtsonseveraloccasionsto simplyprovidethecontractorwithareasonabletimewithinwhich toobtainpaymentfromtheownerbeoreheiscontractuallybound tothesubcontractorsforimmediatepayment.Theinterpretation forwhichHallpresseshasbeenrejected manytimes.See,e.g., ThomasJ.Dyerv.BishopInt\'l Eng.Co.,303F.2d655(6thCir. 1962) WhileaprimarypurposeoftheDyerrulemaybeto preventthesubcontractorsfromrelyingsolelyuponthesolvency oftheownerfortheirpayment,anotherequallysignif icantpurpose istopreventmoneyrightfullyduetothesubcontractorsfrombecominginterminablytiedupinadisputebetweent hecontractorand theownertowhichthesubcontractorsarenotparties. . . ."TheCourtfindsthattheDyerruleisinapplicabletothe .caseatbar.Paragraph15entitledthe(general)contractor totakeareasonabletimeforpaymentofthesubcontractorsin theabsenceofpaymentfromtheowner.TheCourtfurtherfinds that~ period~ithreeyearsexceeds~reasonabletime." WhileMidlandEngineeringanditsfellowsubcontractorswonthiscase, thevictorycouldnothavebeentoosweet.Theystill waitedoverthree yearsfortheirretentionandincurredsubstant iallegalandotherexpenses inordertocollect.Allofwhi chunderscorestheadvicewehaveg i ven onanumberofprioroccasions:Don\'tsignsubcontractswhichmakethe receiptofyourpaymentfromthegeneralcontractordependentuponhis receiptofmoneyfromtheowner.Paymentsunderyoursubcontractshould beunconditionallydueyouuponcompletionandacceptanceofyourworkand shouldnotbetiedinanywaytothepaymentsmadethegeneralcontractor underhiscontractwiththeowner.'