000			01815cam a2200253 4500
001			ABS66515
008			030331n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u121787
100			_aLindsey, S.
245			_aHouseholders are not bound by 'unfair' adjudication provisions
260			_c2003
490			_aArchitects' Journal _v217(9) 6 March 2003, 42(1)
490			_aConstruction News _v(6813) 24 April 2003, 16(1)
520			_aLooks 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
590			_aABS
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aUNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
650			_aCONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT
650			_aRIBA CONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARCHITECT (1999 EDITION)
650			_aPICARDI V CUNIBERTI AND ANOTHER
690			_aDispute resolution _96236
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2002/2923.html&query=Picardi _zView judgment at Bailii website.
942			_n0
999			_c72379 _d72379