Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19 October 2021
Print article
Consider the case of a construction project where the first milestone is the
completion and approval of the design for the project. If the design is not
completed or approved by the milestone date specified in the contract, has the
employer suffered any loss? In most cases, the answer will probably be no. Even
in a scenario where delay has occurred to a milestone that is capable of being
used on its own (e.g., part of a shopping centre) or to a project as a whole (e.g.,
a new road), the monetary loss to an employer as a result of delay may be a
relatively small sum or may be very difficult to quantify.
In light of this, the usual practice is for construction contracts to provide that the
contractor will be liable for liquidated damages (that is, damages in a fixed
monetary amount) for each day or some other period for which it is late in
completing a milestone or the project as a whole. If the project has been divided
into milestones, there may be different liquidated damages rates for each
milestone. The liquidated damages payable in respect of each milestone and the
project as a whole will also probably be capped.
If the Contractor fails to comply with Sub-Clause 8.2 [Time for Completion], the
Employer shall be entitled subject to Sub-Clause 20.2 [Claims For Payment
and/or EOT] to payment of Delay Damages by the Contractor for this default.
Delay Damages shall be the amount stated in the Contract Data, which shall be
paid for every day which shall elapse between the relevant Time for Completion
and the relevant Date of Completion of the Works or Section. The total amount
due under this Sub-Clause shall not exceed the maximum amount of Delay
Damages (if any) stated in the Contract Data.
Clause 8.8 goes on to provide that liquidated damages are the employer’s sole
remedy for delay on the part of the contractor. Provisions of this nature are also
commonly found in construction contracts containing liquidated damages
provisions.
However, the fact that liquidated damages provisions prima facie make
contractors liable for delay, however caused, gives rise to two questions: first,
how does the contractor obtain relief from this liability for liquidated damages
when it has not been responsible for the delay to the project; and second, what
are the legal implications of a clause that provides that the contractor is liable for
liquidated damages even if the employer is at fault?
In relation to the second question noted above, the risk associated with a
liquidated damages clause that does not provide relief for the contractor when
the employer is at fault is that, if the employer causes delay to the project, the
employer will not be permitted, under the law governing the contract, to hold the
contractor to the contractually agreed milestone dates or completion date as it
has prevented the contractor from achieving them. Under English law, the
principle is known as the ‘prevention principle’. Similar principles exist in most
legal systems. If the prevention principle (or equivalent principle) applies because
an employer has caused a contractor delay in achieving a milestone or project
completion, the consequence generally is that time will be ‘at large’. The effects
of time being at large are that the contractor is no longer obliged to complete the
milestones or the project by the associated milestone dates or completion date,
but only in a reasonable time, and that the employer will no longer be able to
claim liquidated damages if the milestone dates or completion date are not met.
In theory, an employer might still have a claim for general damages if the
contractor does not achieve a milestone or completion within a reasonable time,
but, as discussed above, the employer is likely to have difficulty in establishing or
quantifying its actual losses in such circumstances. However, the risk of the
prevention principle coming into play is limited if a contract provides that a
contractor is entitled to an extension of time and associated relief from the
employer’s claim for liquidated damages for matters for which the employer is
responsible. Liquidated damages clauses that provide no relief when the
employer is responsible for delay are extremely rare.
Assuming that a contractor’s claim for an extension of time has failed in whole or
in part and the contractor is contractually liable for liquidated damages, it is often
thought that in some civil law jurisdictions, the contractor will not be liable for
liquidated damages if the employer has suffered no loss as a result of the
contractor’s delays or its actual losses are less than the value of the liquidated
damages that would be payable under the contract. However, such arguments
are based on a misunderstanding of the treatment of liquidated damages clauses
under civil law systems. The circumstances in which contractors are able to
persuade arbitral tribunals to exercise any power to reduce the contractually
agreed amount of liquidated damages are, in practice, extremely rare.
Finally, it is also worth noting that many construction contracts provide that if a
contractor has not been proceeding with the works with reasonable diligence or
some other measure required by the contract, or is otherwise in delay, the
employer may instruct the contractor to accelerate the works or take other steps
to recover the delay. In practice, however, employers are generally hesitant
about exercising such powers as there is a risk that, if the contractor is
subsequently found not to have been in breach of contract or not responsible for
the delay, the employer’s instruction would be found to amount to a variation and
the employer would then be liable to the contractor for the additional costs of the
acceleration or other steps it has directed.
In addition, the generally worded Clause 15.1 of the FIDIC Silver Book provides
that:
If the Contractor fails to carry out any obligation under the Contract the Employer
may, by giving a Notice to the Contractor, require the Contractor to make good
the failure and to remedy it within a specified time (‘Notice to Correct’ in these
Conditions).
This has the potential to be a powerful remedy for an employer while construction
works are progressing. However, it needs to be accompanied by a provision
expressly giving the employer a remedy if the contractor does not comply with
the employer’s notice as the employer may not otherwise have a claim against
the contractor in such circumstances, particularly if the contractor’s failure to
comply with the notice does not cause the employer any immediate financial
loss.
The employer may also have a right to withhold a portion of the payments
otherwise due to the contractor until the deficiency in the work is rectified, even
before the project is complete. In such circumstances, the amount that the
employer will be entitled to withhold will generally be limited to the cost of
rectifying the defect (see, e.g., Clause 14.6 of the FIDIC Silver Book).
Typically, when the contractor considers that it has completed (or, if applicable,
substantially completed) the works:
the contractor issues a written notice to that effect (under the FIDIC Red Book,
this notice is to be issued to the engineer appointed by the employer);
the works are inspected (by the engineer, in the case of a project governed by
the FIDIC Red Book);
if the works are complete (or substantially complete as the case may be), a
Taking-Over Certificate is issued (again, this is the responsibility of the
engineer under the FIDIC Red Book); and
if not, the contractor is notified (by the engineer, under the FIDIC Red Book) of
the works it must complete or correct before the Taking-Over Certificate can
be issued (see, e.g., Clause 10.1 of the FIDIC Red Book).
Similar mechanisms are found in other standard form contracts.
Pursuant to Clause 10.1 of the FIDIC Red Book, the Taking-Over Certificate may
identify minor aspects of the work that are outstanding or need to be corrected by
the contractor, although they do not affect the handing over of the project to the
employer. In such circumstances, the contractor will generally be required to
complete all snagging items and remedy any outstanding defects at its own cost
within a specified period of time, known as the defects liability period, after
completion (see Clause 11 of the FIDIC Red Book). Should any other defects be
identified during that period, the contractor will also be obliged to remedy them by
the end of the defects liability period.
The rectification of defects during the defects liability period is the contractor’s
right. Unless the contract specifically provides to the contrary, where a contract
provides for a defects liability period, the employer is unlikely to have any right to
sue the contractor for damages for breach of contract until the end of this period,
unless the contractor has failed to carry out any rectification work it is required to
carry out during the defects liability period within a reasonable time. If a contract
does not provide for a defects liability period, or if defects remain unremedied or
other works remain incomplete within a reasonable time of them being identified
during the defects liability period or, in the worst case, at the end of the defects
liability period, or if the employer subsequently identifies further defects, the
employer will have a claim against the contractor for breach of contract. The
measure of damages recoverable by the employer will be the costs of rectifying
the defects.
In order to succeed in a defects claim, the employer will need to identify the
relevant contractual specification (which may be a specification relating to the
particular works in question, a specification concerning the quality of the works
generally or a general fitness for purpose warranty), the reasons why the
contractor’s works fail to meet the specification and the costs of rectifying the
defect. An employer is not limited to recovering the costs of rectifying the defect
in the cheapest manner possible, but would be expected to act reasonably in
engaging a third party to undertake the rectification works.
Termination
The most powerful remedy that an employer has against a contractor is the right
to terminate its contract, particularly when the contractor is in default.
Another remedy available to employers, which has some conceptual overlap with
termination, is descoping – that is, removing part of the original scope of works
from the contractor. The wording of variation provisions in most contracts will
permit an employer to add to or omit from the contractor’s scope of works,
effectively at its discretion. On the face of such provisions, it may appear that an
employer would have the right to omit substantial portions of the contractor’s
works for any reason (e.g., if the employer is dissatisfied with the contractor’s
performance generally). However, this may be prohibited by the express terms of
the variation provisions. Even if it is not, most legal systems limit the ability of an
employer to make substantial omissions from a contractor’s scope of works. In
common law systems, it is generally held that an employer cannot take work from
the original contractor in order to give it to another contractor unless the variation
provision of the original contract permits the employer to do so. In some civil law
jurisdictions, particularly those in the Middle East, local law prevents government
employers from changing a contractor’s scope of works by more than 10 per cent
without retendering the works. In practice, this has the effect of preventing a
government employer from reducing the contractor’s scope of works by more
than 10 per cent.
Payment
As noted earlier, an employer will be concerned to see that its project is delivered
on budget. Disputes about price often arise as a result of claims made by
contractors for additional payment, as considered in Chapter 4. Insofar as such
claims are concerned, the employer will generally be the respondent – that is, it
will be defending claims made by the contractor and arguing that the contractor is
not entitled to the extra costs it is claiming.
A contractor’s breach of other provisions may also leave an employer without any
practical remedy. For example, if a contractor fails to employ a specific
subcontractor or key personnel named in the contract or identified by the
employer, or if it does not make project documents available when an employer
exercises its audit rights, the employer is unlikely to be able to do anything about
this. A claim against the contractor for damages for breach of contract will fail
unless the employer is able to identify a quantifiable financial loss from the
contractor’s breach.