000			01878cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS66514
008			030328n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121778
100			_aKnowles, R.
245			_aWhat price defects?
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding Engineer _v78(3) March 2003, 36(1)
520			_aExamines whether a contractor should be given the option of putting faulty work right or pay the cost of others doing the work. However, this situation can often lead to a dispute as the contractor can argue that a fault is not preventing use of a facility and that an owner is seeking to make a profit from a situation. "Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth" (HL Abs53197) ruled the contractor should only pay £2 500 for loss of amenity rather than £21 560 claimed, when he failed to construct a swimming pool to the specified depth, the difference only being nine inches. "McLaren Murdoch and Hamilton Ltd v The Abercromby Motor Group Ltd" (CSOH 2002) dealt with a dispute where an previously installed underfloor heating system in a car motor showroom and workshop was deemed inadequate, and the owner sought to reclaim the cost of replacing it. The architect was ordered to pay the whole cost of the error. The two cases have differing outcomes as Forsyth could still use the pool, whereas Abercromby could not arguably use a cold showroom.
590			_aABS
650			_aLOSS OF AMENITY
650			_aRUXLEY ELECTRONICS AND CONSTRUCTION LTD V FORSYTH
650			_aMCLAREN MURDOCH AND HAMILTON LTD V ABERCROMBY MOTOR GROUP LTD
650			_aDEFECTIVE WORK
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856			_uhttps://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsv/ca128_00.html _zView "McLaren Murdoch and Hamilton Ltd v Abercromby Motor Group at the Scottish Court website.
942			_n0
999			_c72375 _d72375