Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Underatraditionalcontract,thearchitectisliablefordesigningtheWorksandthecontractor
is responsible for providing the goods and materials and constructing the Works. Specifying
is part of the design process. In its broadest sense an architect can be said to be specifying
when producing drawings showing what is to be constructed and the constituent elements.
Specification notes may be inserted on drawings. Therefore, there is little doubt that spe-
cification as a whole is something for which the architect is liable. If something is specified
which is defective, there is a simple question to be asked: Did the architect specify
something which was inherently defective, or something which was entirely suitable but of
which a defective example was supplied to site?
Clearly, in the second instance, the architect has no liability for the specification. Having
specified something appropriate, a defective example was supplied and must be replaced at
the contractor's own cost. If the architect specifies something which is inherently defective,
the kind of thing which would never be suitable, a further enquiry would be necessary to
discover whether the architect had used reasonable skill and care in the specification. If the
problem involved the specification of a specialised product for a particular application in
the building, the architect would be expected to carefully check all the technical informa-
tion with assistance from other consultants, make enquiries of the manufacturers about the
product's suitability for the application, and investigate instances where it had been used
previously in similar applications. If after the use of reasonable skill and care the product
was found to be defective, it is unlikely that the architect would be liable. Redress might
be obtained against the manufacturer, depending on circumstances and, importantly, wheth-
er the manufacturer had confirmed the suitability of the product to the architect in writing.
Where the failure is in the specification rather than the product, the architect will usually
that an architect will specify by reference to an approved sample. What is the position if the
sample itself is subsequently foundto have the same characteristics as the supplied products
which become defective? By specifying the product to be the same as the sample, has the
architect specified negligently? This question was considered in
Adcock's Trustees v Bridge
that case, the bricks supplied were equal to the sample approved and the contractor was not
at fault, even though the bricks specified and approved were not adequate for the wet condi-
tions actually encountered. However, the court made clear that it was the 'apparent' sample
with which the supplied bricks had to conform. If the sample had had concealed cracks, the
