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 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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.