Time - Building Contract Claims - page 27

(3) It can be seen that there is no real delay until the contractor's machinery
breaks down. Before it is repaired, the architect's drawings are issued.
They are certainly late and it is a delaying event under most contracts,
but the late drawings did not delay the completion date.
This is the approach outlined in Royal Brompton Hospital and what can be
drawn from Henry Boot if the dicta referred to earlier is read in context with
succeeding paragraphs.
Assuming that the criteria for concurrency have been satisfied and
assuming further that there are the same two causes in each case (one the
fault of the contractor, the other the fault of the employer or the architect),
there are four possible situations.
The third situation just discussed is shown in Figure 2.1(a); following the
authorities, no extension of time is due to the contractor. Figure 2.1(b) is
the converse: work is stopped awaiting the architect's information. During
the delay, the contractor's machinery breaks down and is repaired again
before the architect's information arrives. In this instance, the machinery
breakdown had no effect on the completion date, because it was already
being delayed by the late information from the architect and 4 days of
extension of time is due.
Figures 2.1(c) and 2.1(d) are not specifically dealt with in either Royal
Brompton Hospital or Henry Boot , but useful conclusions can be drawn from
them. In Figure 2.1(c), the late information causes a delay. It continues for 3
days and affects the completion date similarly, because it is on the critical
path. On the second day, the contractor's machinery breaks down, but it has
no effect on the completion date which is already delayed due to the late
information. However, when the information is provided, the machinery
remains inoperative for a further day and, during that day, it and not the
late information affects the completion date. The total delay is 4 days, of
which the appropriate extension of time is 3 days.
The final situation is shown in Figure 2.1(d). In this instance, the machin-
ery breaks down and causes a delay to the completion date lasting 3 days.
On the second day, the architect's information should arrive, but it is
delayed for 3 days. During the first two of those days, the late information
has no effect on the completion date, but when the machinery is repaired,
the remaining day of delay is caused by the architect's late information.
Therefore, the appropriate extension of time would be 1 day although the
total delay is 4 days.
The same principles can be applied if the concurrency involves a cause
which would give an entitlement to extension of time and another
cause which not only gives an entitlement to extension of time, but also, if
the contractor makes application, to loss and/or expense.
2.5 Acceleration
'Acceleration' has been usefully defined as follows: