Contractors’ Obligations - Scottish Construction Contracts - page 119

an ordinary competent contractor exercising the particular skill, see Bolam v. Friern
Hospital Management Committee (1957).
It may not be sufficient to show the contractor did the same as other contractors if
it can be shown the generally accepted practice is not correct, see Sidaway v. Board of
GovernorsoftheBethemRoyalHospitalandtheMaudsleyHospital (1985).
The obligation may go further than simply carrying out the work as it is contained
on drawings or in other design information provided by the design team.
In a case where the contractor was to provide all materials and perform all work
shown on an architect's drawings, but where they were not supervised by an archi-
tect or engineer, it was found that the contractor had accepted that the employer was
relying on their skill as contractors. There were defects in the plans provided to the
contractor. The contractor ought to have recognized the defects and, since they were
being relied on by the employer, had a duty to warn the employer of the defects in the
plans and the difficulties which would arise if the plans were followed, see Brunswick
Construction Ltd v. Nowlan & Others (1974).
The courts have been willing to imply a term into a contract requiring a contractor
to warn of design defects as soon as the contractor came to be aware that they existed.
In a case where the court considered it must have become apparent during construc-
tion work that the design of curtain walling was unbuildable, it was found this should
have been reported. This was on the basis that if, on examining the drawings or as a
result of experience on site, a contractor formed the opinion that in some respect the
design would not work, or would not work satisfactorily, it would be absurd for them
to carry on building in accordance with it. The contractor was found to have a duty
of care to warn the employer and architect of design defects known to the contractor,
see Equitable Debenture Assets Corporation Ltd v. William Moss Group Ltd and Others
(1984).
The duty to warn goes further. A term has been implied into a contract requiring
thecontractortowarnthearchitectofdefectsinthedesignwhichtheybelieveto
exist. This does not oblige the contractor to carry out a critical examination of the
drawings, bills and specifications looking for mistakes. he contractor's primary duty
is to build, not to scrutinize the design. he obligation to warn arises when, in the light
of their general knowledge and practical experience, the contractor believes or comes
tobelievethatanaspectofthedesigniswrong,see Victoria University of Manchester
v. Hugh Wilson & Others (1984).
Even though the contractor has to be satisfied that the design is satisfactory or suit-
able, the work is still required to be carried out in accordance with good building
practice. A contractor cannot rely on drawings or designs produced by a surveyor to
relieve them of this duty, see Mackay v. Stitt (1988). (1988).The contractor, if not satisied with
a design that is produced to them, has a duty to raise any queries with the design team.
Even if the contractors are given such assurances they may, if still not satisfied, need
to take precautions against failure of the design. If they do not do so, then they may
be found to have acted with less care than is to be expected of an ordinary competent
builder, see Edward Lindenberg v. Joe Canning and Others (1992).
Wheretherearehealthandsafetyconsiderations,thedutytowarncangofurther.In
acasewheretemporarysupportwastobeprovidedtorooftrusses,thesub-contractor