Too specific a contract can hide dangers
Series: Construction News ; (6708) 22 March 2001, 14(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: The traditional standard forms of contract fail to deal adequately with requirements for contractors' building programmes. They do not go into enough detail as to how a programme should be prepared. As a result, to prevent contractors from drawing up very basic master programmes, contract draftsmen often put more detailed requirements in their specifications. Notes some of the unexpected dangers that can arise from doing this, and illustrates these by reference to case law: "Yorkshire Water v Sir Alfred McAlpine"; "Holland Dredging v Dredging and Construction"; and "Havant BC v South Coast Shipping". By requiring work to be carried out in a particular sequence, or specific way, the contractor may be entitled to vary this if it proves impossible to carry out the work in that way.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63638 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111630-1001 |
The traditional standard forms of contract fail to deal adequately with requirements for contractors' building programmes. They do not go into enough detail as to how a programme should be prepared. As a result, to prevent contractors from drawing up very basic master programmes, contract draftsmen often put more detailed requirements in their specifications. Notes some of the unexpected dangers that can arise from doing this, and illustrates these by reference to case law: "Yorkshire Water v Sir Alfred McAlpine"; "Holland Dredging v Dredging and Construction"; and "Havant BC v South Coast Shipping". By requiring work to be carried out in a particular sequence, or specific way, the contractor may be entitled to vary this if it proves impossible to carry out the work in that way.