Geoff Brewer of Brewer Consulting considers an architect's duty to inspection
Brewer, G
Geoff Brewer of Brewer Consulting considers an architect's duty to inspection - 2002 - Contract Journal 413(6372) 10 April 2002, 22(1) .
Considers the extent to which an architect has a duty to inspect or supervise a contractor's work. Reviews the recent case "Consarc Design v Hutch Investments" (2002) in which Hutch contended that a floor slab was not properly scarified before the screed was laid. Hutch held architects Consarc responsible for failing to inspect the floor slab, and relied on the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Standard Form of Agreement 1992 Stage K08 which specifies that the architect should at intervals inspect the progress of construction works. The judge found this to be a vague statement and took the view that inspection is not as important as supervision and that the level of supervision required of by an architect depends on his confidence in the contractor. In addition, an architect's duty to inspect the works does not amount to a warranty that the works will be carried out without defects. On this basis, Consarc was not held liable for negligence. Case law.
DUTY OF INSPECTION
SUPERVISION
ARCHITECTS
DUTY OF INSPECTION
CORFIELD V GRANT
EAST HAM CORPORATION V BERNARD SUNLEY & SONS
SUTCLIFFE V CHIPPENDALE & EDMONDSON
Geoff Brewer of Brewer Consulting considers an architect's duty to inspection - 2002 - Contract Journal 413(6372) 10 April 2002, 22(1) .
Considers the extent to which an architect has a duty to inspect or supervise a contractor's work. Reviews the recent case "Consarc Design v Hutch Investments" (2002) in which Hutch contended that a floor slab was not properly scarified before the screed was laid. Hutch held architects Consarc responsible for failing to inspect the floor slab, and relied on the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Standard Form of Agreement 1992 Stage K08 which specifies that the architect should at intervals inspect the progress of construction works. The judge found this to be a vague statement and took the view that inspection is not as important as supervision and that the level of supervision required of by an architect depends on his confidence in the contractor. In addition, an architect's duty to inspect the works does not amount to a warranty that the works will be carried out without defects. On this basis, Consarc was not held liable for negligence. Case law.
DUTY OF INSPECTION
SUPERVISION
ARCHITECTS
DUTY OF INSPECTION
CORFIELD V GRANT
EAST HAM CORPORATION V BERNARD SUNLEY & SONS
SUTCLIFFE V CHIPPENDALE & EDMONDSON