000			01757cab a2200265 4500
001			##L131239
008			051010n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131239
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aErwin, Alan
245	0	3	_aAn ambitious attempt
260	3		_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0539) 1 October 2005, 131-132(2)
520			_aThe construction industry is keen to adopt a single standard form. Questions whether the standard forms of appointment issued by professional bodies such as RIBA and the Association of Consulting Engineers can be justly called industry standard. Discusses "Munkenbeck and Marshall (a firm) v Harold" ([2005] EWHC 356 (TCC)) where the RIBA Standard Form of Agreement for the Appointment of an Architect (1999 Edition) received adverse judicial comment: 5.13 and 9.6 used unusual, onerous and unfair terms despite the fact that they formed part of profession-wide standard terms. Analyses the BPF Consultancy Agreement (see also L131227) and counters the view expressed by the competitor professional bodies that it is biased in favour of the client. Concludes that the BPF agreement, although not ideal, seems to work as well as the elusive one-size-fits all model.
590			_aIKA111005
650	2	4	_aMUNKENBECK AND MARSHALL (A FIRM) V HAROLD
650	2	4	_aBLYTH AND BLYTH V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD
650	2	4	_aCONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) ACT 1999
650	2	4	_aBPF CONSULTANCY AGREEMENT
650	2	4	_aUNFAIR TERMS IN CONSUMER CONTRACTS REGULATIONS 1999
650	2	4	_aSFA/99
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
856	4	1	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2005/356.html _zView the judgment free of charge at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c75997 _d75997