Quantity surveyors as project managers
Series: Surveying News ; 9(10) November 2000, 10-11(2)Publication details: 2000Subject(s): Summary: Looks at how difficulties can arise when quantity surveyors diversify into project management, due to the lack of a professional procedure of conduct in this field. Discusses the case of "Pride Valley Foods v Hall & Partners" where the performance of a quantity surveyor acting as a project manager was called into question when a fire broke out at the client's factory. Pride Valley Foods accused Hall & Partners of negligence, claiming they had not fulfilled their duty to warn of potential fire hazards in the use of polystyrene wall panels. Evidence provided by expert witnesses was rejected because of the indefinable nature of project management. The judgment was therefore made on the exact terms of the consultancy agreement between the parties. Hall & Partners were found negligent because their agreement included a responsibility to specify materials to use in the building, which gave rise to a duty of care to inform the client of fire hazards.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63218 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 109649-1001 |
Looks at how difficulties can arise when quantity surveyors diversify into project management, due to the lack of a professional procedure of conduct in this field. Discusses the case of "Pride Valley Foods v Hall & Partners" where the performance of a quantity surveyor acting as a project manager was called into question when a fire broke out at the client's factory. Pride Valley Foods accused Hall & Partners of negligence, claiming they had not fulfilled their duty to warn of potential fire hazards in the use of polystyrene wall panels. Evidence provided by expert witnesses was rejected because of the indefinable nature of project management. The judgment was therefore made on the exact terms of the consultancy agreement between the parties. Hall & Partners were found negligent because their agreement included a responsibility to specify materials to use in the building, which gave rise to a duty of care to inform the client of fire hazards.