Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
seeking redress for work or materials which do not comply with the contract docu-
ments in other ways.
That all the provisions of the contract requiring adjustment of the contract sum have
been complied with:
The final certificate is conclusive evidence that all necessary ad-
justments (adds, omits, etc.) to the contract sum have been properly carried out. Acci-
dental inclusion or omission of work or materials, an obvious arithmetical error or
fraud are the only matters that will allow the sum to be corrected.
That all extensions of time which are due under the extension of time clause have been
given:
This prevents the contractor submitting new evidence about delays after the fi-
nal certificate has been issued.
That reimbursement of loss and/or expense is in final settlement of all contractor's
claims in respect of the matters identified under the loss and/or expense clause, wheth-
er the claims are for breach of contract, duty of care, breach of statutory duty or oth-
erwise:
Thisisaverybroadclauseintendedprincipally,likethepreviousclause,toen-
sure that the final certificate really does signify the end of the road so far as finances
are concerned. It should be noted that the conclusivity is effective only in respect of
the loss and/or expense clause. It does not prevent the contractor from making claims
in regard to breaches of contract which fall outside the scope of these matters.
•
•
•
Some confusion was generated when the Court of Appeal, in
Crown Estates Commission-
as it applied to the architect's satisfaction with workmanship and materials. Much to the
concern of architects, the court interpreted the words 'which are to be to the satisfaction
of the architect' very broadly, deciding that all workmanship and materials were inherently
matters for the architect's satisfaction and that the final certificate under JCT 80 was con-
clusivethatthearchitectwassatisfiedwiththequalityandstandardsof
all
materials,goods
and workmanship. The consequence was that the employer found it very difficult to take
subsequent action against the contractor for latent defects. As a result, it became common
for architects to avoid issuing a final certificate at all, leaving a small sum of money out-
standinginthebeliefthatthecontractorwouldnotbothertopursueit.Itwashopedthatthe
employer would not be prevented from seeking redress from the contractor if any defects
appeared.
Subsequently, the JCT issued amendments to each of the affected forms of contract. The
amendments were designed to remove the effect of the Court of Appeal decision by re-
wordingthesub-clausesrelatingtothearchitect'ssatisfaction.Thepositionappearstohave
been restored to what everyone thought it was before the
Crown Estates
case: The final
certificate was conclusive about the architect's satisfaction only if the architect had spe-
cifically stated in the bills of quantities or specification that some item of goods, materials
or workmanship was to be to his or her satisfaction or approval. The JCT 2011 series of
