Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
usually have a fitness for purpose obligation,
but not under the JCT
Design and Build
Contract?
Whereanemployerreliessolelyonacontractortodesignandconstructanentirebuilding,a
term of reasonable fitness for purpose will be implied and the contractor's liability will not
dependonitsnegligenceorfaultorwhethertheunfitnessresultsfromthequalityofworkor
the collapse of a television mast:
in the absence of a clear, contractual indication to the contrary, I see no reason why
[a contractor] who in the course of his business contracts to design, supply and erect
a television mast is not under an obligation to ensure that it is reasonably fit for the
purpose for which he knows it is intended to be used. The Court of Appeal held that
this was the contractual obligation in this case and Iagree with them. The critical ques-
tion of fact is whether he for whom the mast was designed relied upon the skill of the
supplier . . . to design and supply a mast fit for the known purpose for which it was
required.
15
Therefore, where a contract is entered into by which a contractor is required to design and
constructabuilding,itsliability willbetoensurethatthebuilding,whenfinished,isreason-
ably fit for its intended purpose so far as that purpose has been made known.
The JCT Design and Build Contracts have amended this usual implication of law by in-
serting a special clause (DB clause 2.17.1) which expressly states that the contractor has the
same liability as an architect or other appropriate professional designer. This is a valuable
concessiontocontractorswhichisnotavailableundermostotherdesignandbuildcontracts.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(1966) 4 BLR 50.
Co-operative Group Ltd v John Allen Associates Ltd
[2010] EWHC 2300 (TCC).
C G A Brown v Carr & Another
[2006] EWCA Civ 785.
(2002) 84 Con LR 164
(2006) 109 Con LR 14.
[2001] BLR 74.
Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd
[1995] EWHC 7 (Ch).
(1970) 10 BLR 96.
(1971) 10 BLR 107.
