What is required for the reliance on the Spearin Doctrine to be accepted by federal and state courts?

The Spearin Doctrine, which originates from the case of United States v. Spearin, establishes that when a contractor follows plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor is not responsible for defects in the design. For courts to rely on this doctrine, the contractor's reliance on the plans must be reasonable. This means that the contractor should not only follow the specifications but also do so with an understanding that these plans have been adequately vetted and are suitable for the intended purpose. The reasonableness criterion emphasizes that the contractor's duty to ensure the adequacy of the design is limited when the plans are provided by the owner, and that the contractor is entitled to assume that these plans meet necessary technical and legal standards.

Other choices relate to different aspects of contract law or conditions that may not fundamentally align with the application of the Spearin Doctrine. For instance, strictly adhering to the doctrine or having explicit statements in contracts might not capture the essence of what it means for the reliance to be reasonable. Moreover, support by case law, while relevant in establishing precedent, does not in itself address the reasonableness of the contractor's reliance. Hence, the focus on reasonableness is critical in practical applications before the courts.