Type Of Contract Forms

Front 1

JCT Minor Works 16

Back 1

full responsibility of design with Contractor

Front 2

JCT Intermediate/Std. Building Contract

Back 2

Last 30% Design Contractor Responsibility

Front 3

JCT Design Build 16

Back 3

Last 70% Design Contractor Responsibility

Front 4

NEC 4 Engineering Construction Contract

Back 4

Last 70% Design Contractor Responsibility

Front 5

General Conditio / Works Contracts 2000

Back 5

Last 30% Design Contractor Responsibility, PL insurance is required

Front 6

ProjectPartnerContract2000

Back 6

Last 30% Design Contractor Responsibility, Everyone has to sign the collateral agreement before the commencement of the project. PI not mentioned

Front 7

Fidic Red Book 17

Back 7

Last 20% Design Contractor Responsibility

Front 8

Fidic Yellow 17

Back 8

Last 70% Design Contractor Responsibility

Front 9

Fidic Silver Book 17

Back 9

No design by Contractor

Front 10

RICS Std Professional Service Contract 2018

Back 10

Duty of care - Reasonable care and skill

Front 11

Rolls Royce Power Engineering Ltd, Allen Engineering Ltd. V Ricardo Consulting Engineering 2003

Back 11

"Of First Class Quality" non standard terms

Front 12

Greaves v Baynham Meikle (1975)

Back 12

the consultant was held liable for a higher level of duty as he was aware of the purpose of the design and Bolam case applied

Front 13

George Hawkins v Chrysler (1986)

Back 13

No - C has not breached the duty of reasonable skill and care but that the warranty as to providing a safe floor could not be implied into the contract

Front 14

Associated British Ports v Hydro Soil Services NV[2006]

Back 14

The contractor was held liable for not providing the fit for purpose structure

Front 15

Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc (2008)

Back 15

notwithstanding the surveyor's care and skill

Front 16

Costain v Charles Haswell & Partners (2009)

Back 16

Consultant liability for design, damages due to revised design. the contractor was entitled to damages, but only in respect of sums arising out of the consultant's negligent advice.

Front 17

MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd v Haase Environmental Consulting GmbH (2015)

Back 17

Under the contract, the consultant was prima facie liable to the company for the cost consequences of any modifications to the design which did not comply with the specification or delivery plan

Front 18

RIBA Professional Service Contract governing obligation clause (3.1 Duty of care)

Back 18

Architect’s duties and obligations shall be deemed to be subject to the exercise of reasonable skill, care and diligence and nothing contained in this as agreement

Front 19

Liability under statute

Back 19

1. Defective Premises Act 1972 (strict),

2. Health and Safety Act 1974

3. Sale of Goods Act 1979 BSSGroupPlcvMakers(UK)Ltd(2011)

4. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982

5. Consumer Rights Act 2015

Front 20

Miller v Cannon Hill Estates Ltd (1931)

Back 20

Design of Building - Contractor Obligation

Front 21

Viking Grain Storage v TH White Installations (1985)

Back 21

Design of Building - Contractor Obligation

Front 22

Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd v ADT Fire and Security

Back 22

‘ADT Fire and Security CO 2 fire fighting systems are designed, manufactured and installed to suit the specific requirements of the risks to be protected and comply generally with the requirements of BS5306 Part 4.’ The contractor is not under the obligation to provide a fit for purpose design.

Front 23

Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze and Brass (1934)

Back 23

The ship does not meet the agreed specifications standard

Front 24

IBA v EMI and BICC (1980)

Back 24

The contractor was held liable for not notifying the design issues. design is reasonably fit for the purpose

Front 25

Viking Grain Storage v TH White Installations

Back 25

Contractor held liable - Judge John Davies QC held that there was no good reason for the duty in relation to design to be of any different to the standard in relation to the quality of materials

Front 26

Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan (1996)

Back 26

NO - Whether the steel slag fulfilled the implied term as to merchantability.

Front 27

Tesco Stores v Costain Construction Ltd (2007)

Back 27

Yes- Contractor is liable for design

Front 28

Trebor Bassett v ADT Fire and Security (2012)

Back 28

No- Contractor is not liable for design

Front 29

MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd (2014)

Back 29

where the contractor has a design obligation, terms as to fitness for purpose of the completed work are sometimes implied: such contracts are likely to include also the lesser obligation to carry out the design with reasonable care and skill. The two obligations are not mutually incompatible.

Front 30

OBS & Another v Lend Lease Construction & Another [2017]

Back 30

The technical specification said that the glass should be heat soaked for a specified period. The main contract said the glass should have a life of 30 years, and that it should be of ‘good quality’ and that the materials should be ‘appropriate for their purpose’

Front 31

Target v Torfaen Borough Council (1992)

Back 31

Tort of Negligence

Front 32

Bellefield Computer Services v E Turner & Sons Ltd (No. 2) (2000)

Back 32

need to check

Front 33

Pearson Education Ltd v The Charter Partnership Ltd (2005)

Back 33

drainage system was inadequate, but the client was aware of it due to previous flooding. first flood did not remove the later occupiers from the list of those to whom a care of duty was owed, nor broke the chain of causation

Front 34

Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates (1995)

Back 34

1. extended Hedley Byrne to negligent acts (ie could include design)

2. comments on 3-stage test: if proximity and reliance established, no need to establish fairness

3. in the context of a professional retainer, proximity and reliance could be presumed

Front 35

Cliffe Holdings v Parkman Buck (1996)

Back 35

Architect liable to the contractor: The architect owed a duty of care in tort to the contractor concurrent with the contractual duty of care of the engineer.

Front 36

Galliford Try v Mott McDonald (2008)

Back 36

Engineer not liable to the contractor - Mott MacDonald accepts no responsibility for this document to any party other than the person by whom it was commissioned.

Front 37

Radius Housing Association Ltd. V JNP Architects

Back 37

Net contribution clause are key to limiting liability for design Errors

Front 38

Eckersley v Bonnie & Partners 1988

Back 38

Level of liability - the skill and care similar to other competent members of the professional

Front 39

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyor PCS 2018, Clause 3.1

Back 39

Duty of care same as in SGSA 1979

Front 40

Rolls Royce Power Engineering Ltd & Allen Eng. Ltd v Ricardo Consulting Engineering

Back 40

Non Std terms - for providing "First class quality"

Front 41

Greaves v Baynham 1975

Back 41

The consultant was held liable for "High care of duty" Industrial building, forklift movement

Front 42

George Hawkins v Chrysler 1986

Back 42

No consultant Liability. The shower facility

Front 43

Associated British Ports v Hydro Soil Services 2006

Back 43

Held liable for not providing the fit for purpose Strength a quay wall

Front 44

Platform funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland 2009

Back 44

The surveyor valued other property. Notwithstanding that the survey's care and skill

Front 45

Costain v Charles Haswell & Partners 2009

Back 45

The consultant Liabile for the design for making modification during construction.

Front 46

MW High Tech Projects UK v Haase Environmental Consulting GmbH 2015

Back 46

Liable for any modifications to the design which did not comply with the specifications or delivery plan

Front 47

Royal Institute of British Architects, Professional Service Contract

Back 47

3.1 Duty of Care- Shall be deemed to be subject to the exercise of reasonable skill, care and diligence and nothing in this contract can impose high level of duty