Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
foresee will be required in the course of the works provided the date
specified for delivery of each set of instructions meets these two require-
ments. Of course if he does so and the works do not progress strictly in
accordance with this plan some modification may be required to the
prescribed timetable and the subsequent furnishing of instructions and
the like . . . It does not follow that the programme was a sufficiently
specified application made at an appropriate time in relation to every
item of information required, more particularly in light of the delays and
the rearrangement of the programme for the work.'
472
Clause 5.4.2 requires the architect to provide 'such further drawings or
details which are reasonably necessary to explain and amplify the Contract
Drawings and . . . to enable the Contractor to carry out and complete the
Works in accordance with the Conditions', i.e. by the completion date. It is,
of course, clear that apart from the express terms of the contract there would
be an implied term that the contractor will receive decisions, drawings,
details, etc. from the architect in time to avoid disruption of the contract.
However, the last part of the clause stipulates that if the contractor is
aware and has reasonable grounds for believing that the architect is
not aware when the contractor should receive information, he must inform
the architect, giving him sufficient time to prepare the information. Al-
though the clause is governed by the phrase 'if and to the extent that it is
reasonably practicable to do so', it is difficult to envisage many circum-
stances when it would not be practicable. To that extent, the fulfilling of this
requirement by the contractor may prove a hurdle to some claims for delays
under this head. However, a contractor who deliberately refrains from
making specific requests for drawings, on the basis that time will become
'at large' because the architect cannot give an extension of time, is likely to
be considered to have a wholly unmeritorious claim.
Delay on the part of nominated sub-contractors or nominated suppliers: clause
25.4.7
A limited meaning is to be given to this provision; 'delay on the part of
Nominated Sub-Contractors' only means delay by the nominated sub-
contractor during the execution of the sub-contract works, and if a nominated
sub-contractor (or, for that matter, a nominated supplier) ostensibly com-
pletes his sub-contract work or his supply contract but later is found to be in
breach, e.g. because defects appear in the work, and has to return to remedy
the breach, that is not a 'delay' within the meaning of this sub-clause
473
.
Where a nominated sub-contractor withdraws from site, the duty of the
employer is limited to giving instruction for nomination of a replacement
within a reasonable time after receiving a specific application in writing
472
London Borough of Merton
v.
Stanley Hugh Leach Ltd
(1985) 32 BLR 51.
473
Westminster Corporation
v.
J. Jarvis & Sons Ltd
(1970) 7 BLR 64, as explained in
Percy Bilton Ltd
v.
Greater London Council
(1982) 20 BLR 1.
