Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
non-hindrance terms as pleaded in paragraph 7 of the re-amended state-
ment of claim.
By reason of the numerous changes made after the acceleration agree-
ment the defendants were in breach of those implied terms, if not also of
the express term. The latter point turns on whether the express duty was
conditional upon receipt of a specific request for information from the
plaintiffs. I doubt that it was, but the point is academic.
It is impossible to tell whether, as a matter of probability, the plaintiffs
would or would not have finished by 26 August 1994, but for those
changes. They would have had a reasonable opportunity of doing so,
but they could easily have failed for all manner of reasons. In those
circumstances I would hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages
for loss of that chance equal to 50 per cent of the agreed performance
bonus, or £10,000.'
192
Although based on a specially worded acceleration agreement, neverthe-
less, this part of the judgment gives useful guidance on the way in which the
courts may decide whether and to what extent a contractor has been
deprived of the opportunity to earn a bonus by the actions or defaults of
the employer and architect. In this instance the judge took a robust, if
somewhat rough and ready, approach.
192
(1996) 83 BLR 31 at 64 per Mr Recorder Toulson.
