Contractor's Obligations

Question 1

How does Article 1 of the JCT contract relate to the obligations regarding workmanship and materials?

Answer 1

Article 1 requires the contractor to carry out and complete the works in accordance with the Contract Documents, which includes meeting the standards for workmanship and using materials that meet specified standards and specifications.

Question 2

What does Clause 2.1 of the JCT contract require from the contractor concerning workmanship and materials?

Answer 2

Clause 2.1 obliges the contractor to carry out and complete works in a proper and workmanlike manner, using materials of the type, quality, and durability specified in the contract.

Question 3

In the case of Plant Construction v Clive Adams, what standard of workmanship was set?

Answer 3

The standard of good workmanship was set as that of an ordinarily competent contractor, meaning that the work should be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner.

Question 4

What is the significance of the “so far as procurable” phrase in the JCT contract concerning materials?

Answer 4

The phrase “so far as procurable” limits the contractor’s obligation, allowing them to use substitute materials if the specified materials or goods are unobtainable.

Question 5

How does the case of IBA v EMI & BICC impact the design and build obligation under common law?

Answer 5

The case established the common law obligation for ‘fitness for purpose / intended use’ in design and build contracts.

Question 6

What did the case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Henry Boot contribute to the JCT contract, particularly regarding the contractor’s design responsibility?

Answer 6

The case highlighted the duty of the contractor to examine the design, assess assumptions, and form an opinion on their appropriateness, leading to the inclusion of Clause 2.11 in the JCT 16 contract.

Question 7

How does the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Part 1A S11D relate to the implied terms for materials in construction contracts?

Answer 7

The Act implies that materials will be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, mirroring the principles found in case law.

Question 8

What is the significance of the case of Surrey Heath Borough Council v Lovell Construction Ltd regarding workmanship?

Answer 8

The case held that the obligation of good workmanship is a continuing one throughout the duration of the works, not arising only on completion.

Question 9

In the context of a JCT contract, what is the standard required for a contractor’s design responsibilities when the Contractor’s Designed Portion (CDP) applies?

Answer 9

The contractor is held to the same obligation as an Architect or other appropriate professional would undertake to the Employer if the design works were carried out under a separate contract.

Question 10

What is the relevance of the case of Cotton v Wallis in determining if the Architect is “reasonably satisfied” with the workmanship?

Answer 10

The case suggests that the Architect can take into account the price when determining if they are “reasonably satisfied,” particularly if the price is low.

Question 11

How does Clause 2.3 of the JCT contract relate to the obligations of the contractor regarding workmanship and materials?

Answer 11

Clause 2.3 requires the contractor to meet the standard described in the Contract Bills and ensure the workmanship and materials are to the reasonable satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.

Question 12

How does the case of Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan affect the implied term of fitness for purpose regarding materials?

Answer 12

The case suggested that providing a list of suitable materials to a contractor could indicate that there is no reliance on the contractor’s skill to ensure fitness for purpose.

Question 13

How does the case of Hojgaard v EON highlight the difference between the JCT contract and common law obligations in design and build contracts?

Answer 13

The case demonstrated that a contractor could be held responsible for breaching the ‘fitness for purpose’ obligation under common law, even if the works were performed in accordance with specified technical standards, which differs from the JCT contract’s requirement for reasonable skill and care.

Question 14

How does Clause 2.11 in the JCT 16 contract relate to the contractor’s responsibility for the Employer’s Requirements and design adequacy in the context of the case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Henry Boot?

Answer 14

Clause 2.11 was included in the JCT 16 contract to clarify that the contractor shall not be responsible for the Employer’s Requirements or for verifying the adequacy of the design, addressing the issue raised in the Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Henry Boot case.

Question 15

How does the phrase “so far as procurable” in a JCT contract affect the contractor’s obligations regarding materials?

Answer 15

The phrase “so far as procurable” means that if the Contractor can’t procure the specified materials or goods, they may be allowed to use substitutes.

Question 16

What is the standard of workmanship implied by the case of Plant Construction v Clive Adams?

Answer 16

The case set the standard of good workmanship to that of an ordinarily competent contractor, stating that the work should be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner.

Question 17

In what circumstances might the case of Cotton v Wallis not be a binding authority when determining if the Architect is “reasonably satisfied” with the workmanship?

Answer 17

The case might not be a binding authority if its consideration of the price when determining “reasonable satisfaction” contradicts any express terms in the contract.

Question 18

What is the main difference between the design obligations under a JCT contract and under common law, as illustrated by the case of IBA v EMI & BICC?

Answer 18

Under a JCT contract, the contractor is typically required to exercise reasonable skill and care, while under common law, as seen in the case of IBA v EMI & BICC, the obligation is for ‘fitness for purpose / intended use.’

Question 19

How does Clause 3.17 to 3.21 of the JCT contract ensure that the Contractor complies with workmanship obligations?

Answer 19

Clauses 3.17 to 3.21 provide the Architect with the powers to ensure that the Contractor complies with these workmanship obligations and include sanctions in case it does not do so.

Question 20

What are the implications of the case of G H Myers & Co v Brent Cross Service Co on the contractor’s obligations regarding materials?

Answer 20

The case established that a contractor warrants that the materials used will be of good quality and reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are used.

Question 21

How does Clause 1.9.1.1 in the JCT contract relate to the Architect’s or Contract Administrator’s acceptance of the standard of workmanship?

Answer 21

When the final certificate is issued according to Clause 1.9.1.1, it serves as acceptance that the standard of workmanship has been met to the Architect’s or Contract Administrator’s reasonable satisfaction.

Question 22

How does the case of Surrey Heath Borough Council v Lovell Construction Ltd impact the understanding of a contractor’s obligation for good workmanship in construction contracts?

Answer 22

The case held that the obligation of good workmanship is a continuing one throughout the duration of the works, not arising only on completion.

Question 23

In what circumstances might the case of Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan impact a contractor’s responsibility for ensuring fitness for purpose of materials used in construction?

Answer 23

The case suggested that providing a list of suitable materials to a contractor could indicate that there is no reliance on the contractor’s skill to ensure fitness for purpose, thus affecting their responsibility.

Question 24

Which case established the standard of good workmanship to that of an ordinarily competent contractor, stating that the work should be carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner?

Answer 24

Plant Construction v Clive Adams

Question 25

Which case held that providing a list of suitable materials to a contractor could indicate that there is no reliance on the contractor’s skill to ensure fitness for purpose?

Answer 25

Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan

Question 26

Which case demonstrated that the term ‘complete’ in the context of design included the duty for the contractor to examine the design at the point from which it was taken over, assessing the assumptions on which the original design was based and forming an opinion on whether such assumptions were appropriate?

Answer 26

Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Henry Boot

Question 27

In which case was it held that a contractor could be held responsible for breaching the ‘fitness for purpose’ obligation under common law, even if the works were performed in accordance with specified technical standards?

Answer 27

Hojgaard v EON

Question 28

Which case suggested that when judging if they are “reasonably satisfied,” the Architect can take into account the price, in particular, if the price is low?

Answer 28

Cotton v Wallis

Question 29

In which case did the court establish that a contractor warrants that the materials used will be of good quality and reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are used?

Answer 29

GH Myers v Brent Cross Service

Question 30

Which case held that the obligation of good workmanship is a continuing one throughout the duration of the works, not arising only on completion?

Answer 30

Surrey Heath Borough Council v Lovell Construction Ltd

Question 31

Which case set the common law standard for design obligations as ‘fitness for purpose / intended use,’ which can differ from the JCT contract standard of exercising reasonable skill and care?

Answer 31

IBA v EMI & BICC