West Faulkner Associates v London Borough of Newham
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1993 CILL 802-804(3)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: ChD 1 October 1992. The architects (W) were employed by the council to act in respect of refurbishment work for a housing association. The essence of the contract required W `to do and perform all acts, matters and things which are commonly done and performed by Chartered Architects according to the practice of their profession in relation to the works`. The contract did not impose any absolute duties on W. The council entered into a contract with a building contractor M in the form of JCT Contract for use by local authorities with quantities 1963 edition (1977 Revision) subject to the councils standard amendments. M began work but there were delays due to spending too long on each block which created uncertainty for the tenants leading to the council having to pay compensation to them. The council and W were unwilling to give notice under clause 25 of the contract as they considered that M were not failing to proceed regularly and diligently with the works. The council negotiated a| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS48324 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 66191-1001 |
ChD 1 October 1992. The architects (W) were employed by the council to act in respect of refurbishment work for a housing association. The essence of the contract required W `to do and perform all acts, matters and things which are commonly done and performed by Chartered Architects according to the practice of their profession in relation to the works`. The contract did not impose any absolute duties on W. The council entered into a contract with a building contractor M in the form of JCT Contract for use by local authorities with quantities 1963 edition (1977 Revision) subject to the councils standard amendments. M began work but there were delays due to spending too long on each block which created uncertainty for the tenants leading to the council having to pay compensation to them. The council and W were unwilling to give notice under clause 25 of the contract as they considered that M were not failing to proceed regularly and diligently with the works. The council negotiated a