CLP Presentation

Questions
 PART A - Question 1:
Analyzing JCT Standard Building Contract 2016: Addressing Risks
and Responsibilities.

Uncover Relevant Events: According to the JCT Standard Building Contract (with quantities) 2016, relevant events include unexpected ground
conditions, bad weather, and the need to move power lines.

Unexpected Ground Conditions: If unexpected ground conditions happen, the worker may be able to get more time and pay more under Clause
2.8, as long as they follow the notice rules.

Responsibility for Unexpected Ground Conditions: Clause 4.12 says that the contractor is usually in charge of handling and taking the risk of
unexpected ground conditions. On the other hand, you may be entitled to more time and money.
Conditions of Bad Weather: Bad weather can be an important event under Clause 2.26, which means that the contractor can get more time but
not extra costs unless the contract says otherwise.

Accountability for Bad Weather: Usually, it's up to the provider to deal with the effects of bad weather, but being able to ask for more time
may lower some of the risks that come with that.

Changing Power Cables: If power cables need to be changed, this could be an important event under Clause 2.26, which would give the
contractor more time without charging extra unless the contract says otherwise.

Who is Responsible for Moving Power lines? Who is responsible for moving power lines may depend on the terms and conditions of the
contract. Unless stated otherwise, it may usually be the contractor's job.
Notice Requirements: For the worker to be able to get extra time or money, they must follow the notice rules in the contract, such as those in
Clause 2.26 and Clause 4.12.

Contractual Dispute Resolution: If parties argue about extra costs or extensions of time, they should follow the dispute resolution steps spelled
out in the contract and look at the relevant clauses for help.
 PART A - Question 1: Navigating
Contractual Rights Strategically
ABC Contractors may earn more time
and money for unexpected ground
conditions if warning requirements are
met. JCT Standard Building Contract
2016 Clause 2.8 and relevant case law
apply.
Clause 2.26 allows for weather delays,
however extra money is seldom
provided unless included in the
contract. Depending on contract and
notice requirements, moving power
lines may not need extra cost. Case
law, contract, and warning norms
establish rights.
If ABC Contractors give enough
notice, the JCT Standard Building
Contract (with quantities) 2016,
Clauses 2.8 and 2.26, and relevant case
law like Peak Construction (Liverpool)
Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
[1971] and Holme v Guppy [1984]
may allow them to get more time and
extra costs for bad weather, unexpected
ground conditions, and moving power
cables. Contracts, notice laws, and
other legal situations determine rights.
 Issues to Address and Advice for
ABC Contractors: Partial Possession,
Notices, Liquidated Damages, and
Remedial Works
ABC is under partial possession. As stated in
JCT Standard Building Contract (with amounts)
2016, Clause 2.14, contractors should think
about the effects of partial possession. It is
important for the contractor to exercise caution
in comprehending the degree of partial
possession, the possible consequences for the
project as a whole, and the related expenses and
schedule issues.
Notices for Relevant Events: Make sure that the
contractual notice requirements—such as those
included in JCT Clause 2.26—are followed in
the case of relevant events, such as inclement
weather or unanticipated ground conditions. For
information on how to enforce notice, see
pertinent case law, such as Holme v. Guppy
[1984].
Notices for Extension of Time: Citing examples
such as Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v.
McKinney Foundations Ltd [1971] to highlight
the need of timely and correct notification, strict
adherence to the notice requirements under
Clause 2.29 is essential when requesting an
extension of time.
Notice Requirements for Remedial Works:
Remedial Works under Clause 2.38: Examine
When planning to perform remedial works,
the consequences of remedial works in
make sure that the notice requirements under
accordance with JCT Clause 2.38, taking into
Clause 2.38 are followed. Stress the
account the contractor's obligations, possible
significance of appropriate documentation and
expenses, and the effect on the completion date.
communication, as highlighted in decisions
Case law should be consulted to offer context
such as Balfour Beatty Regional Construction
and clarification.
Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd [2016].
Enforceability of Liquidated Damages:
Determine whether liquidated damages clauses
are enforceable by taking into account the
importance of avoiding fines rather than
accurate pre-estimates of loss and the guidelines In conclusion, I advise ABC
set in cases such as Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co
Ltd v. New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915]. Contractors to carefully manage
remedial works in accordance with the
contractual provisions of Clause 2.38,
closely monitor partial possession
considerations, strictly adhere to
Liquidated Damages: Determine if liquidated notice requirements for relevant events
damages are a true pre-estimate of loss by and extensions of time, and evaluate
reviewing the enforceability of the clause in the enforceability of liquidated
light of Cavendish Square Holding BV v. Talal
El Makdessi [2015] and Clause 2.32 of the JCT
damages with reference to case law.
Standard Building Contract.
 PART B – Question 3 - Issues and Advice for Cressington
Contractors: Understanding Variations, Valid Instructions, and
Non-Compliance Consequences

Identifying Variations: The cases Henry
Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Alstom
Combined Cycles Ltd (2005) and JCT
Standard Building Contract (2016) should
be consulted.
Sufficient Guidelines: To ensure that
variation instructions are legal, make sure
they comply with Clause 5.1 and the
ruling in Wimpey Construction UK Ltd v
Poole (1984).
The effects of noncompliance: Examine
the consequences in accordance with
Clause 5.6 and the lessons learned from
Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd. v.
McKinney Foundations Ltd. (1971).

In conclusion, I provide Cressington Contractors with the following advice: Clause 5.1 and Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd
[2005] require Cressington Contractors to carefully identify and record alterations in accordance with the JCT Standard Building Contract (with amounts) 2016.
Check change instructions against Clause 5.6 using Wimpey Construction UK Ltd v Poole (1984). See Clause 5.6 of the contract in Peak Construction (Liverpool)
Ltd v. McKinney Foundations Ltd [1971] for noncompliance penalties. Finally, review the contract for subcontracting or assignment limits. We can see Vestnet
Ltd v Baker [1987] for the validity and impact of client delegation to a contractor.
 PART B – Question 3
Certifier's Responsibilities and Email Communication:
Understanding Additional Factors and Case Law

 Certifier's Responsibilities:
 The certifier must impartially assess work, adhere to contractual provisions, and certify
payments accurately, as outlined in the contract.
 Email Communication:
 Emails may constitute valid communication for certification purposes if they meet
contractual requirements and are properly documented.
 Other Factors to Consider:
 Consider the specificity of contract clauses regarding communication methods and any
potential disputes arising from email correspondence.
 Relevant Case Law Application:
 Refer to cases such as RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co
KG [2010] EWCA Civ 135 and Vestnet Ltd v Baker [1987] to understand the legal
validity of email communication in contractual matters.
PART C – Question 4: Issues and
Advice: Frustration, Breach, and
Termination Procedures
Doctrine of Frustration: Assess if unexpected
events invoke the doctrine of frustration,
releasing parties from performance
obligations; refer to Taylor v Caldwell
(1863).

Breach of Contract: Identify breaches by

evaluating actions against contractual terms,
citing specific clauses, and referring to cases
like Hochster v De La Tour (1853).

Termination Clause and Procedures: Review

the contract's termination clause, follow
specified procedures, and consider case law,
such as Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012]
EWCA Civ 419.
 PART C – Question 4 (Issues and
Advice: Frustration, Breach, and
Termination Procedures)

Contractual Notice
Requirements: Adhere to
Mitigation of Good Faith Performance:
contractual notice
Damages:Parties should Emphasize the duty of
provisions when
consider mitigating good faith performance
addressing issues, as
damages by taking in contracts, as seen in
failure to comply may
reasonable steps to Yam Seng Pte Ltd v
impact legal remedies;
minimize losses; refer to International Trade Corp
consider Entores Ltd v
Payzu v Saunders (1919) Ltd [2013] EWHC 111
Miles Far East
for guidance. (QB).
Corporation [1955]
EWCA Civ 3.
PART D – Question 5: Assess Rapid Rail's payment entitlement,
citing contract, law, and advise on dispute resolution if HR7
defaults
Points Content

Rapid Rail Ltd.'s payment rights should be determined by the project's contract. Payment milestones, invoicing methods,
1. Contractual Provisions
and dispute resolution agreements should be considered.

Assess Rapid Rail Ltd.'s payment request against construction contract laws. Consider and comply with any legislative
2. Legislation Compliance
requirements that may affect payment.

Review case law that may justify Rapid Rail Ltd.'s payment. Cite precedents with comparable situations and results to
3. Case Law Precedents
support the claim if HR7 challenges payment responsibilities.

A well-reasoned dispute resolution plan if HR7 fails to pay - negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and lawsuit are options.
4. Dispute Resolution Strategy
Consider each approach's pros and cons in light of the scenario.

Promote detailed documentation to support Rapid Rail Ltd.'s claim. Advise on keeping complete contract, invoice, and
5. Documentation and
HR7 communication records. Effective communication tactics should also aid conflict settlement.
Communication
PART D – Question 5 (Assess Rapid Rail's payment
entitlement, citing contract, law, and advise on
dispute resolution if HR7 defaults)

Construction Contract under HGCRA 1996: According to the Housing Grants, Construction, and Regeneration Act
1996 (HGCRA), a construction contract grants parties payment and dispute resolution rights.

The NEC4 interim payment procedure: The contractor submits interim payment applications, and the project
manager evaluates and certifies the amount due within a certain deadline in NEC4.

Dispute Resolution: Construction contracts allow parties to settle disputes by discussion, mediation, adjudication,
arbitration, or litigation.

Other Considerations: Consider the contract's provisions, notification requirements, and procedural stages before
choosing a dispute resolution mechanism. Failure to comply may reduce its efficacy.

Applying Case Law: Cases like Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd [2016] EWHC 168
(TCC) show how courts interpret and implement construction contract requirements, notably payment disputes.
 Finally

Comprehensive
Variations and
Notice Adherence: Partial Possession: Extension of Time: Considerations:
Certifiers: Adhere to
Strictly comply with Evaluate implications Follow Clause 2.29 Navigate the complex
legal guidelines
notice requirements meticulously, diligently, referencing landscape of contract,
(Clause 5.1), ensuring
(Clauses 2.8, 2.26, considering case law (e.g., Peak case law, and strategic
impartial certification
and 4.12) for relevant contractual and legal Construction [1971]) factors for successful
and validating email
events, ensuring legal ramifications under for credible time project management
communication per
precedent. Clause 2.14. extension requests. and dispute
case precedents.
resolution.
 References

 Crangle, T. (2021). The JCT Standard Building Contract. In Architect's Legal Handbook (pp. 181-214).
Routledge.
 DHWH. (1929). Contract. Restraint of Trade. Price Maintenance Agreement. Proprietary Article. Palmolive
Company (Of England), Ltd. v. Freedman.[1928] Ch. 264. 97 LJ Ch. 40. The Cambridge Law Journal, 434-
436.
 El-adaway, I., Fawzy, S., Ahmed, M., & White, R. (2016). Administering extension of time under national and
international standard forms of contracts: A contractor’s perspective. Journal of legal affairs and dispute
resolution in engineering and construction, 8(2), 04516001.
 Gould, N. (2006). Standard Forms: Standardisation, Bastardisation And The Virtual Contract.
 Kilvits, K. (1994). Current State of Estonian Industry. The Basic Material Prepared in Autumn 1993 for the
Joint Estonian-Finnish Study Project on The Future of Estonian Industry (No. 500). ETLA Discussion Papers.
 Lupton, S. (2019). Guide to JCT Standard Building Contract 2016. Riba Publishing.
 O'Sullivan, J. (2020). O'Sullivan and Hilliard's the Law of Contract. Core Texts Series.
 Thomas, D. R. (2015). Charterparties and Agreed Damages Clauses under English Law and the DCFR.
EJCCL, 7, 77.