Construction Law Issues-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignment

Question: Advise to Chief Estates Officer of Camford University offering JCT 2016 contractual, legal and case law advice. How should the University proceed in relation to the problems outlined in the case study. Answer: Construction Law Issues The contractor is in breach of contract as to the completion date by the occasioned delay. The date of completion within which the halls of residence were to be ready for occupation was written down in the contract document making it a term in the contract. Failure to complete within the stipulated time is a breach of contract. The contractor is liable in the circumstances to pay damages that are determined to be reasonable as the rate was never fixed in the agreement. Under clause 8.8 of JCT, the employer has the right to decide not to complete and terminate the contract. The Chief estates officer should therefore issue a notice to complete to the contractor. Where the contractor does not complete even after a notice to complete has been issued, the Chief Estates Officer can claim damages for breach of contract. Clause 2.5 of JCT allows for deferment of possession for completion to be finalized (Graafar Perry, 2009, p. 34). However, extension of time can be justified due to changes in weather conditions which made performance of the contract difficult and leading to frustration. Uncertainty or unpredictability of weather conditions are outside the control of the parties to the contract. It adds to the frequency of delays and claims for delays. As a result, it leads to matters of human fallibility. Changes in weather especially cold weather will affect the drying of cement since it cannot proceed below a given temperature. A delay especially on the concrete frame and foundations is most likely to slow the rate of work and impact greatly on the completion date. There have also been discovery of antiquities which have slowed down the rate of performance and has a bearing on the completion date of the contract. The effect of antiquities is the suspension and delay in carrying out of works. The contractor should give directions on the way forward regarding the preservation of the antiquities. Antiquities are categorized under the unknown physical conditions. Relief for delay caused by antiquities is provided for under clause 2.10.5.1 of the JCT Works Contract. Change in circumstances where the University introduced changes to the security and communications system way into the performance period thus introducing a material alteration that is likely to delay the project. These are grounds that can justify an extension and defeat the payment of any damages as a result of breach of contract. All the factors discussed above are likely to necessitate extension of time. In Carillion Construction Ltd v Woods Bagot Europe Ltd Ors [2016] EWHC 905 (TCC) (28 April 2016), the issue was Whether an extension of time should run contiguously from the existing date for completion and whether the contractor's agreement with the employer concerning its liability for liquidated damages under a building contract extinguished its liability, thereby preventing a claim against its sub-contractors. It was held that and extension of time should be added contiguously and that the contractors liability to the employer was not extinguished (Grunberg et al, 2007, p. 71). The letter of intent does not bind the parties. It is not the main contractual document but just ancillary. The letter ignored critical elements of the contract such as consideration and therefore does not constitute an agreement between the parties. Clause 3.12 of JCT does not recognize instructions other than those reduced into writing. Parties should therefore conclude negotiations and execute the main contract that contains all their rights and responsibilities under the contract. The contractor has failed to comply with the terms of the contract requiring a 10% performance bond from the construction company. The company had a duty to arrange for the contractor to provide a performance bond which they have breached as required under clause 7.3 of JCT. They are liable to provide the 10% performance bond on their own account if they fail to have the contactor provide it. The subcontractor is also in breach of contract by failing to fill and sign the collateral warranty forms. The contractor has an obligation to insure as provided for under clause 6.15 of JCT. This is a breach of duty on part of the sub- contractor and an attempt to avoid liability in case of breach of contract by the contractor or in case any injury occurring at the construction site (Hinze, 2000, p. 43). The errors between the drawings, specifications and the bills of quantities are a fundamental breach of contract for which the University can claim payment of damages. They introduce fundamental changes on the initial contract which have the effect on cost as the university will need to spend more in obtaining materials to cater for the changes made. Where there is an error in the bill of quantities that is exaggerated, the quantity surveyor is liable to the extent with which the quantities are excess or less. He is liable in such circumstances to account for the excess or provide the deficit from his own account. There are laid down procedures under schedule 2 of JCT on the procedures to vary the contract. In Finesse Group Ltd v Bryson Products (A Firm)[2013] EWHC 3273 (TCC), the court forced parties to scale down cost budgets or the court exercises its discretion in imposing a fixed proportionate costs. The site manager should be present at the site to supervise and ensure that the work is done according to specifications. Failing to be present at all times at the construction site is an act of negligence which the University can seek to hold him liable in case of any defect that occurs in the construction works. In SABIC UK Petrochemicals Limited v Punj Lloyd Limited[2013] EWHC 2916 (TCC), courts held that failure to exercise due diligence can be a ground for termination of a contract (Hughes et al, 2015, p. 18). In case there is likely to be a delay, the contractor should notify the University as required by clause 2.27 of JCT. References Gaafar, H. K., Perry, J. G. (2009) Limitation of design liability for contractorsInternational Journal of Project Management,17(5), 301-308 Gruneberg, S., Hughes, W., Ancell, D. (2007) Risk under performance?based contracting in the UK construction sectorConstruction Management and Economics,25(7), 691-699. Hinze, J. (2000).Construction contracts McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math Hughes, W., Champion, R., Murdoch, J. (2015)Construction contracts: law and management. Routledg