Time at Large in Construction Contract Law
1.
Time at large
A.
When a delay event takes place at the fault of the employer and the contract does not have provisions for the date of completion to be extended and any damages or time is put at large the contractor is provided a reasonable time in relation to the completion of the work and no liquidated damages can be claimed by the employer for delay. On the other had extension of time is provided based on specific criteria set in the contract (Burr 2016).
B.
In the case of Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd [1999] 70 Con LR 32 it has been stated by the court that while assessing a claim in relation to extension of time the contract administrator or the architect has the right to take into account those matter which he considered to have caused delayed the work and are not events which are relevant. In the given situation also HC will have the right to trigger the extension of time clause as they have been provided by H on multiple occasion variation work orders. These are factors which delay the work.
The principles through which time becomes at large had been discussed in the case of Bluewater Energy Services BV v Mercon Steel Structures BV and others EWHC 2132 (TCC); 155 Con. L.R. 85. The court held that when a delay event takes place at the fault of the employer and the contract does not get the date of completion extended time is put at large and the contractor is provided a reasonable time in relation to the completion of the work. Thus here as the same situations have taken place HC can claim time at large.
2.
Liquidated damages provisions
A.
In construction contracts liquidated damages are mechanism for which a party is able to claim monetary compensation in relation to damages and loss which occur because of the failure of a party to finish the work in the stipulated time. On the other had penalty clause are preset in a contract before the contract is formed and makes the party violating it liable for damages. Penalty can be more than actual loss suffered but not liquidated damages. Mostly the party who has breached the terms are provided more advantage by liquidated damages clause (Hughes Champion and Murdoch 2015).
B.
- It has been stated by the court in the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 that when liquidated damages are not fixed then the court may impose damages which are reasonable to compensate the loss of the party which a contract is formed. Thus as Mosses were provided by payments from the hotel and a contract was formed due to the letter of intent they are entitled to pay liquidated damages for defective work. This is because all other conditions had been covered by the letter of intent other than adjudication and liquidated damages and thus it would be binding as held in the case of Trustees of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137
- Where no payment would have been provided by the Hotel there would have contract formed between Mosses and the hotel as they instructed to start the work. Thus the position would be same.
3.
Four key insurances
A.
The type of insurance which are required under the JCT include
- Public liability insurance – this insurance cover damages to the property of third party or personal injury or death caused to third party other than insured employees
- Professional indemnity insurance- this insurance covers professional negligence and may also include infringement of intellectual property or breach of confidentiality.
- All risks insurance- The insurance covers physical damages to site materials and contract works.
- Employers’ liability insurance – provides cover against the cost of compensation claims (Ter, Laney and Levine 2016)
B.
- In the case of Lanphier v. Phipos (1838) 2 it had been stated by the court that there is an implied term in the contract that goods which are to be provided have to be of a reasonable quality and fit for a purpose. Thus V has the liability of compensating G for the breach of contract as there was an implied term in the contract that the goods provided would be of a reasonable quality and fit for a purpose.
- No in this situation V would not be liable as there would have been no obligation of them to supply the good
- In this situation also V would not be liable as they are choosing the goods over options provided by the other party
4.
Fit for Purpose
A.
In the case of Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 454 the meaning for fit for purpose had been discussed by the court. In this case it had been held by the court that the term fit for purpose signifies that the services or goods which have been provided must be in the eyes of a reasonable person appropriate for the purpose for which they have been provided or supplied (Hibberd 2017).
B.
- No, S would not be able to exclude liability under the contract. In the above discussed case of Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd it had been stated by the court that unless it has been expressly agreed by the parties to the contract on the contrary there would be an implied term in the contract for supply of work and materials that the materials which would be used are of a merchantable quality and they must be fit reasonably for the purpose they are sued. Here there has not been any such express agreement and thus it can be stated that it is an implied term for S to supply tiles with are of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose.
- Yes in this situation S would not be liable as there would have been no obligation of them to supply the good
- In this situation also S would not be liable as they are choosing the goods over options provided by the employer
5.
“variations” and the common method for “valuing variations”
A.
A variation which is also called a variation order or a variation instruction is a alternation to the scope of work in relation to construction contracts which takes place like an addition, substitution and omission form the originally provided work. One of the most common way of valuing variation is by using rates derived from a breakdown of the contract sum. Under this methods the changes would be valued by the use of pricing information which is directly associated with the incurring of the contract sum. For instance use of rates in bill of quantities.
B.
- No, V would not be able to exclude liability under the contract. In the above discussed case of Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd it had been stated by the court that unless it has been expressly agreed by the parties to the contract on the contrary there would be an implied term in the contract for supply of work and materials that the materials which would be used are of a merchantable quality and they must be fit reasonably for the purpose they are sued. Here there has not been any such express agreement and thus it can be stated that it is an implied term for S to supply tiles with are of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose.
- Yes in this situation V would not be liable as there would have been no obligation of them to supply the good as the delivery was from a contractor sent by the employer
- In this situation also V would not be liable as they are choosing the goods over options provided by the employer
References
Bluewater Energy Services BV v Mercon Steel Structures BV and others EWHC 2132 (TCC); 155 Con. L.R. 85.
Burr, A. ed., 2016. Delay and disruption in construction contracts. CRC Press.
Costain Ltd v Bechtel Ltd TCLR 6 and [2005] BLM Vol. 22 No.8
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79
Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd [1999] 70 Con LR 32
Hibberd, P., 2017. Sustainability–The Role of Construction Contracts. Future Challenges in Evaluating and Managing Sustainable Development in the Built Environment, pp.268-284.
Hughes, W., Champion, R. and Murdoch, J., 2015. Construction contracts: law and management. Routledge.
Keane, P.J. and Caletka, A.F., 2015. Delay analysis in construction contracts. John Wiley & Sons.
Lanphier v. Phipos (1838) 2
Sabic UK Petrochemicals Ltd v Punj Lloyd Ltd [2013] EWHC 2916
Stein, S.G., 2016. Payment (Vol. 2). Construction Law.
Ter Haar, R., Laney, A. and Levine, M., 2016. Construction insurance and UK construction contracts. CRC Press.
Trustees of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Management Ltd [2012] EWHC 2137
Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd [1969] 1 A.C. 454
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
