An ambitious attempt
Erwin, Alan
An ambitious attempt - 2005 - Estates Gazette (0539) 1 October 2005, 131-132(2) .
The construction industry is keen to adopt a single standard form. Questions whether the standard forms of appointment issued by professional bodies such as RIBA and the Association of Consulting Engineers can be justly called industry standard. Discusses "Munkenbeck and Marshall (a firm) v Harold" ([2005] EWHC 356 (TCC)) where the RIBA Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect (1999 Edition) received adverse judicial comment: 5.13 and 9.6 used unusual, onerous and unfair terms despite the fact that they formed part of profession-wide standard terms. Analyses the BPF Consultancy Agreement (see also L131227) and counters the view expressed by the competitor professional bodies that it is biased in favour of the client. Concludes that the BPF agreement, although not ideal, seems to work as well as the elusive one-size-fits all model.
MUNKENBECK AND MARSHALL (A FIRM) V HAROLD
BLYTH AND BLYTH V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD
CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999
BPF CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
SFA/99
An ambitious attempt - 2005 - Estates Gazette (0539) 1 October 2005, 131-132(2) .
The construction industry is keen to adopt a single standard form. Questions whether the standard forms of appointment issued by professional bodies such as RIBA and the Association of Consulting Engineers can be justly called industry standard. Discusses "Munkenbeck and Marshall (a firm) v Harold" ([2005] EWHC 356 (TCC)) where the RIBA Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect (1999 Edition) received adverse judicial comment: 5.13 and 9.6 used unusual, onerous and unfair terms despite the fact that they formed part of profession-wide standard terms. Analyses the BPF Consultancy Agreement (see also L131227) and counters the view expressed by the competitor professional bodies that it is biased in favour of the client. Concludes that the BPF agreement, although not ideal, seems to work as well as the elusive one-size-fits all model.
MUNKENBECK AND MARSHALL (A FIRM) V HAROLD
BLYTH AND BLYTH V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD
CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999
BPF CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT
UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
SFA/99