Fitness for purpose in construction - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 08:34, 4 September 2020

2020-09-04T08:34:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 4 September 2020
Line 103:		Line 103:
	* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].		* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]] [[Category:~~Other_legislation~~]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 12:25, 20 July 2020

2020-07-20T12:25:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 20 July 2020
Line 95:		Line 95:
	* Professional consultant's certificate.		* Professional consultant's certificate.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
		+	* Re-evaluating the design life of buildings.
	* Structures at the end of their design life.		* Structures at the end of their design life.
	* Testing construction materials.		* Testing construction materials.
Line 102:		Line 103:
	* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].		* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].

−	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]	+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:DCN_Legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 15:59, 19 May 2020

2020-05-19T15:59:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 19 May 2020
Line 78:		Line 78:

	* Best endeavours v reasonable endeavours.		* Best endeavours v reasonable endeavours.
		+	* BTTG.
	* Collateral warranty.		* Collateral warranty.
	* Construction contract.		* Construction contract.

Designing Buildings at 10:38, 15 March 2020

2020-03-15T10:38:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 15 March 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~Click here to access the Designing Buildings Wiki report Fit for purpose - Big data reveals the construction knowledge gap.~~
−
	= General =		= General =

Designing Buildings at 16:33, 10 February 2020

2020-02-10T16:33:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 10 February 2020
Line 94:		Line 94:
	* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others (2014).		* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others (2014).
	* Opening up works for inspection and testing.		* Opening up works for inspection and testing.
		+	* Professional consultant's certificate.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
	* Structures at the end of their design life.		* Structures at the end of their design life.
−	* Sub-contractor.
	* Testing construction materials.		* Testing construction materials.
	* The Supply of Goods and Services Act.		* The Supply of Goods and Services Act.

Editor at 14:05, 15 October 2018

2018-10-15T14:05:18Z

Editor at 15:35, 2 July 2018

2018-07-02T15:35:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 2 July 2018
Line 82:		Line 82:
	* Collateral warranty.		* Collateral warranty.
	* Construction contract.		* Construction contract.
		+	* Cradle-to-grave.
	* Contractor.		* Contractor.
	* Decennial liability.		* Decennial liability.

Editor at 10:36, 10 May 2018

2018-05-10T10:36:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:36, 10 May 2018
Line 48:		Line 48:
	'... now, as between the building owners and the contractors, it is plain that the owners made known to the contractors the purpose for which the building was required, so as to show that they relied on the contractors' skill and judgment. It was, therefore, the duty of the contractors to see that the finished work was reasonably fit for the purpose for which they knew it was required. It was not merely an obligation to use reasonable care. The contractors were obliged to ensure that the finished work was reasonably fit for the purpose’		'... now, as between the building owners and the contractors, it is plain that the owners made known to the contractors the purpose for which the building was required, so as to show that they relied on the contractors' skill and judgment. It was, therefore, the duty of the contractors to see that the finished work was reasonably fit for the purpose for which they knew it was required. It was not merely an obligation to use reasonable care. The contractors were obliged to ensure that the finished work was reasonably fit for the purpose’

−	In Viking Grain Storage Limited v T. H. White Installations Limited, W were package deal contractors for the design and construction of a grain drying and storage installation. The installation was not fit for its purpose and V contended that there were implied terms of the contract that W would use materials of good quality and reasonably fit for their purpose and that the completed works would be reasonably fit for their purpose, namely that of a grain drying and storage installation. The court held that there were no terms of the contract or any other relevant circumstances which were inconsistent with the implied terms of quality and fitness for purpose and further that there was no reason to differentiate between W's obligation in relation to the quality of materials and their obligation as to design. V had relied upon W in all aspects, including design, and on the skill and	+	In Viking Grain Storage Limited v T. H. White Installations Limited, W were package deal contractors for the design and construction of a grain drying and storage installation. The installation was not fit for its purpose and V contended that there were implied terms of the contract that W would use materials of good quality and reasonably fit for their purpose and that the completed works would be reasonably fit for their purpose, namely that of a grain drying and storage installation.

−	judgment of W, and in the circumstances, the terms contended for should be implied.	+	The court held that there were no terms of the contract or any other relevant circumstances which were inconsistent with the implied terms of quality and fitness for purpose and further that there was no reason to differentiate between W's obligation in relation to the quality of materials and their obligation as to design. V had relied upon W in all aspects, including design, and on the skill and judgment of W, and in the circumstances, the terms contended for should be implied.

	By way of contrast the Supreme Court of Ireland in the case of Norta Wallpapers (Ireland) v Sisk & Sons (Dublin), held that where a roof structure, which had been supplied and erected by a specialist sub-contractor, subsequently leaked and was unsuitable for its purpose, the fact that the main contractor was given no choice but to use the specialist sub-contractor, their design and price constituted circumstances which meant that there was no reliance by the employer on the main contractor and, accordingly, there was no fitness for purpose obligation on the main contractor in respect of the specialist sub-contractor's failure.		By way of contrast the Supreme Court of Ireland in the case of Norta Wallpapers (Ireland) v Sisk & Sons (Dublin), held that where a roof structure, which had been supplied and erected by a specialist sub-contractor, subsequently leaked and was unsuitable for its purpose, the fact that the main contractor was given no choice but to use the specialist sub-contractor, their design and price constituted circumstances which meant that there was no reliance by the employer on the main contractor and, accordingly, there was no fitness for purpose obligation on the main contractor in respect of the specialist sub-contractor's failure.
Line 56:		Line 56:
	In the (unreported) case of Trolex Products Limited v Merrol Fire Protection Engineers Limited there was an interesting issue as to whether a design obligation was created by the bringing together of what otherwise would have been standard components. T were the sub-contractors for the supply of an electronic control system which was incorporated into M’s own works comprising the installation of a fire protection system in the Ras Abufontas power and water station in Quatar. In response to the submission by T that there was minimal design obligation in the sub-contract, Potter J stated:		In the (unreported) case of Trolex Products Limited v Merrol Fire Protection Engineers Limited there was an interesting issue as to whether a design obligation was created by the bringing together of what otherwise would have been standard components. T were the sub-contractors for the supply of an electronic control system which was incorporated into M’s own works comprising the installation of a fire protection system in the Ras Abufontas power and water station in Quatar. In response to the submission by T that there was minimal design obligation in the sub-contract, Potter J stated:

−	'I should perhaps add that at one stage I had evidence from T which minimised the work of design carried out, suggesting that it was no more than, in effect, a matching of pieces of standard equipment to make up a package to do the job; or as Mr B put it "logic design work created from standard equipment". Even if that was so in fact, I am satisfied from the answers of Mr B that there was a conscious realisation that design work was involved and that T were consulted as experts in	+	'I should perhaps add that at one stage I had evidence from T which minimised the work of design carried out, suggesting that it was no more than, in effect, a matching of pieces of standard equipment to make up a package to do the job; or as Mr B put it "logic design work created from standard equipment". Even if that was so in fact, I am satisfied from the answers of Mr B that there was a conscious realisation that design work was involved and that T were consulted as experts in their field. Further, it is clear that substantial time was spent on this work. Again, whether or not that was so, it is not suggested that anything was said by T to delimit or belittle the design work involved and the construction of the written contract is clear in my view, namely as one for work of design as well as the supply of goods.'
−		+
−	their field. Further, it is clear that substantial time was spent on this work. Again, whether or not that was so, it is not suggested that anything was said by T to delimit or belittle the design work involved and the construction of the written contract is clear in my view, namely as one for work of design as well as the supply of goods.'	+

	= Dwellings =		= Dwellings =
Line 71:		Line 69:
	to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’		to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’

−	Unlike the Supply of Goods & Services Act, the Defective Premises Act does not operate via the parties’ contract but in fact creates a statutory duty. Accordingly, it has a much wider effect and is akin to tortious liability which is not dependent upon a contract. It follows that future owners are entitled to sue the builder if they are in breach of the statutory duty. The Act is, however, restricted to the provision of dwellings and does not apply to commercial developments although the term 'dwellings' includes dwellings that are created by conversion or enlargement. There is also a statutory exception: Section 2(1) provides that where the construction of the dwellings is subject to 'an approved scheme' the Act does not apply. The National House Building Council operates a warranty scheme for dwellings that is approved under the Act.	+	Unlike the Supply of Goods & Services Act, the Defective Premises Act does not operate via the parties’ contract but in fact creates a statutory duty. Accordingly, it has a much wider effect and is akin to tortious liability which is not dependent upon a contract. It follows that future owners are entitled to sue the builder if they are in breach of the statutory duty.
		+
		+	The Act is, however, restricted to the provision of dwellings and does not apply to commercial developments although the term 'dwellings' includes dwellings that are created by conversion or enlargement. There is also a statutory exception: Section 2(1) provides that where the construction of the dwellings is subject to 'an approved scheme' the Act does not apply. The National House Building Council operates a warranty scheme for dwellings that is approved under the Act.

	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.

Editor at 15:20, 15 March 2018

2018-03-15T15:20:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 15 March 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:
	The judgments identified the types of circumstances that would be relevant to the test. The case also provides a useful comparison of the obligations of fitness for purpose and merchantability.		The judgments identified the types of circumstances that would be relevant to the test. The case also provides a useful comparison of the obligations of fitness for purpose and merchantability.

−	= Supply of Goods and Services Act. =	+	= Supply of Goods and Services Act =

	The common law rules have now in part been replaced (in relation to goods) and in part supplemented (in relation to services) by a statutory code, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994), which governs all contracts made after 4 January 1983.		The common law rules have now in part been replaced (in relation to goods) and in part supplemented (in relation to services) by a statutory code, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994), which governs all contracts made after 4 January 1983.
Line 71:		Line 71:
	to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’		to see that the work which he takes on is done in a workmanlike or, as the case may be, professional manner with proper materials and so that as regards that work the dwelling will be fit for habitation when completed’

−	Unlike the Supply of Goods & Services Act, the Defective Premises Act does not operate via the parties’ contract but in fact creates a statutory duty. Accordingly, it has a much wider effect and is akin to tortious liability which is not dependent upon a contract. It follows that future owners are entitled to sue the builder if they are in breach of the statutory duty. The Act is, however, restricted to the provision of dwellings and does not apply to commercial developments although the term	+	Unlike the Supply of Goods & Services Act, the Defective Premises Act does not operate via the parties’ contract but in fact creates a statutory duty. Accordingly, it has a much wider effect and is akin to tortious liability which is not dependent upon a contract. It follows that future owners are entitled to sue the builder if they are in breach of the statutory duty. The Act is, however, restricted to the provision of dwellings and does not apply to commercial developments although the term 'dwellings' includes dwellings that are created by conversion or enlargement. There is also a statutory exception: Section 2(1) provides that where the construction of the dwellings is subject to 'an approved scheme' the Act does not apply. The National House Building Council operates a warranty scheme for dwellings that is approved under the Act.
−		+
−	dwellings includes dwellings that are created by conversion or enlargement. There is also a statutory exception: Section 2(1) provides that where the construction of the dwellings is subject to 'an approved scheme' the Act does not apply. The National House Building Council operates a warranty scheme for dwellings that is approved under the Act.	+

	The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.		The Act prohibits any attempt to exclude its operation by section 6(3), which makes void any term in a contract that purports to exclude or restrict the operation of the Act.
Line 90:		Line 88:
	* Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages.		* Defective Premises - Liability and Measure of Damages.
	* Defective Premises Act.		* Defective Premises Act.
		+	* Design life.
	* FC Twente stadium roof collapse.		* FC Twente stadium roof collapse.
	* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others (2014).		* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others (2014).

Designing Buildings at 11:36, 12 January 2018

2018-01-12T11:36:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:36, 12 January 2018
Line 98:		Line 98:
	* Testing construction materials.		* Testing construction materials.
	* The Supply of Goods and Services Act.		* The Supply of Goods and Services Act.
		+	* Warranty.
	* Workmanlike manner.		* Workmanlike manner.
	* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].		* [[Zennstrom_%26_Anor_v_Fagot_%26_Ors\|Zennstrom & Anor v Fagot & Ors]].

	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Other_legislation]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]