Evil - or misunderstood?
Series: Building ; 265(8164) 1 December 2000, 62(1)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the net contribution clause and the common misconceptions concerning the detail of the principle and the fact that its complexity disguises its intention. Net contribution clauses effectively reduce a party's share of liability to reflect their share of fault. Without such a clause the warrantor may well have to stand alone, unable to divide the damages payable with others who were also at fault. On design-and-build jobs, the division of risk between contractor and consultant can be particularly contentious and needs a commonsense approach. Net contribution clauses work much more in the client's favour because they do not make the warranty conditional on similar warranties from the third parties.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63259 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110074-1001 |
Discusses the net contribution clause and the common misconceptions concerning the detail of the principle and the fact that its complexity disguises its intention. Net contribution clauses effectively reduce a party's share of liability to reflect their share of fault. Without such a clause the warrantor may well have to stand alone, unable to divide the damages payable with others who were also at fault. On design-and-build jobs, the division of risk between contractor and consultant can be particularly contentious and needs a commonsense approach. Net contribution clauses work much more in the client's favour because they do not make the warranty conditional on similar warranties from the third parties.