Let's ditch the JCT
Series: Building ; 267(8221) 15 February 2002, 54(1)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: Argues that the continued use of JCT forms, when there are less complex alternatives, is surprising. NEC documents and GC/Works contracts are suggested as less biased towards employers and written in plain English. "Crown Estate Commissioners v John Mowlem & Company" showed the effect on employers interests of clause 30.9.1.1 of previous issues of JCT to the 98 version, where a final certificate would have protected the contractor from liability even if a building had collapsed shortly afterwards. GC/Works/1 With Quantities 1998, deals with this same scenario with more protection for the project manager. The use of JCT with substantial amendments is commonplace, and could be sensibly replaced by other forms.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS65092 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116880-1001 |
Argues that the continued use of JCT forms, when there are less complex alternatives, is surprising. NEC documents and GC/Works contracts are suggested as less biased towards employers and written in plain English. "Crown Estate Commissioners v John Mowlem & Company" showed the effect on employers interests of clause 30.9.1.1 of previous issues of JCT to the 98 version, where a final certificate would have protected the contractor from liability even if a building had collapsed shortly afterwards. GC/Works/1 With Quantities 1998, deals with this same scenario with more protection for the project manager. The use of JCT with substantial amendments is commonplace, and could be sensibly replaced by other forms.