An invitation to sue
Series: Building ; 266(8178) 30 March 2001, 51(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Discusses warranties that are provided by contractors and consultants. Suggests these are costly and dangerous, often containing risks not obvious to the parties involved. The signing of a warranty often involves taking costly advice about its meaning. Criticises the absence of a quid pro quo within most warranties. Offers two proposals to improve the current situation. Firstly, suggests it should be a condition of warranties that all outstanding payments to warrantors should have been 'fully discharged'. Secondly, that warrantors should make efforts to assign a proper price on the warranty obligations, and this price should be identified separately. Offers a reminder that warranties are not a requirement.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63631 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111821-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses warranties that are provided by contractors and consultants. Suggests these are costly and dangerous, often containing risks not obvious to the parties involved. The signing of a warranty often involves taking costly advice about its meaning. Criticises the absence of a quid pro quo within most warranties. Offers two proposals to improve the current situation. Firstly, suggests it should be a condition of warranties that all outstanding payments to warrantors should have been 'fully discharged'. Secondly, that warrantors should make efforts to assign a proper price on the warranty obligations, and this price should be identified separately. Offers a reminder that warranties are not a requirement.