Householders are not bound by 'unfair' adjudication provisions
Series: Architects' Journal ; 217(9) 6 March 2003, 42(1) | Construction News ; (6813) 24 April 2003, 16(1)Publication details: 2003Subject(s):- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- UNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
- CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT
- RIBA CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARCHITECT (1999 EDITION)
- PICARDI V CUNIBERTI AND ANOTHER
- Dispute resolution
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66515 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 121787-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Looks at adjudication issues raised under the RIBA "Conditions for the appointment of an architect (CE/99) for use with a letter of appointment". This form has been re-drafted to include adjudication provisions for domestic projects, a category left out of mandatory adjudication clauses in contracts. In "Picardi v Cuniberti"[2003] the householders argued they had not signed up to a draft copy of CE/99 sent by the architect, and also that its adjudication provisions were unfair and should not bind them. Judge emphasised the architects' failure to go through the contract highlighting specific clauses on adjudication to them. Concluded that the adjudication provisions, together with CE/99 clauses were unfair. View judgment at http://www.bailii.org