Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
therefore be deducted and the contractor's obligation was to complete within a reason-
able time.
Where the contract stipulates that work is to be done within a stated period, if by his conduct
the employer renders it impossible or impracticable for the contractor to do his work within
the stipulated time, then the employer can no longer insist upon strict adherence to the time
for completion and he cannot enforce any liquidated damages.
Dodd v. Churton
COURT OF APPEAL
[1897] 1 QB 562
A contract provided for the whole of the works to be completed by 1 June 1892, with
liquidated damages of £2 per week for every week that any part of the work remained
unfinished after that date. There was a provision that any authority given by the archi-
tect for any alteration or addition in or to the works was not to vitiate the contract.
There was no provision for extending the time for completion if additional work was
ordered. Additional works were ordered involving delay in the completion of the works
beyond the specified date. The works were not completed until 5 December 1892. A
fortnight was a reasonable time for the doing of the additional work, and the employer,
allowing a fortnight's additional time for the completion of the works, claimed £2 per
week in respect of the delay of 25 weeks.
Held:
By giving the order for the additional works the employer had waived the stipulation
for liquidated damages in respect of non-completion of the work by 1 June.
LORD ESHER MR: Where one party to a contract is prevented from performing it by the act of
the other, he is not liable in law for that default; and, accordingly, a well recognised rule has
been established in cases of this kind, beginning with
Holme
v.
Guppy
(1838), to the effect that,
if the building owner has ordered extra work beyond that specified by the original contract
which has necessarily increased the time requisite for finishing the work, he is thereby disen-
titled to claim the penalties for non-completion provided for by the contract.
Under a contract in JCT 98 terms where clause 24 is incorporated and the parties complete
the relevant appendix entry, either by stating a rate at which liquidated damages are to be
calculated or by stating that the sum is nil, that constitutes an exhaustive agreement as to the
damages which are or are not to be payable by the contractor in the event of his failure to
complete the works on time.
Temloc Ltd v. Errill Properties Ltd
COURT OF APPEAL
(1987) 12 Con LR 109
On 12 March 1984 the respondent (Temloc) entered into in JCT 80 (Private, Without
Quantities version) with the defendant (Errill) for the construction of a large shopping
