000			01474cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS65092
008			020227n2002 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u116880
100			_aPike, A.
245			_aLet's ditch the JCT
260			_c2002
490			_aBuilding _v267(8221) 15 February 2002, 54(1)
520			_aArgues 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.
590			_aABS
650			_aJCT80
650			_aJCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT (1998 EDITION)
650			_aNEC
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS-STANDARD FORMS OF BUILDING CONTRACT-GC/WORKS CONTRACTS
650			_aGC/WORKS/1
650			_aCROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS V JOHN MOWLEM AND CO LTD
650			_aContracts _96232
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-LAW
942			_n0
999			_c69617 _d69617