Reasonable skill and care - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 15:37, 29 January 2021

2021-01-29T15:37:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 29 January 2021
Line 133:		Line 133:
	* Professional consultant's certificate.		* Professional consultant's certificate.
	* Supply of Goods and Services Act.		* Supply of Goods and Services Act.
		+	* Unreasonable.
	* Workmanlike manner.		* Workmanlike manner.

	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Designing Buildings at 08:06, 9 September 2020

2020-09-09T08:06:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:06, 9 September 2020
Line 135:		Line 135:
	* Workmanlike manner.		* Workmanlike manner.

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

Designing Buildings at 16:34, 10 February 2020

2020-02-10T16:34:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 10 February 2020
Line 131:		Line 131:
	* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others.		* MT Høgjaard A/S and E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and others.
	* Negligence.		* Negligence.
−	* ~~Sub-contractor~~.	+	* Professional consultant's certificate.
	* Supply of Goods and Services Act.		* Supply of Goods and Services Act.
	* Workmanlike manner.		* Workmanlike manner.

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

31.221.91.162 at 18:39, 8 March 2019

2019-03-08T18:39:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:39, 8 March 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:
	Clive Adams were structural engineers engaged by Plant and JHM were sub-contractors for the sub-structure work involving shoring excavations and roof support. The roof collapsed because of insufficient support. Ford sued Plant who settled the claim. Plant then brought claims for breach of contract against Clive Adams and JHM. Clive Adams settled. JHM defended alleging that they had been following the instructions given to them by an engineer employed by Ford in the design and execution of the works.		Clive Adams were structural engineers engaged by Plant and JHM were sub-contractors for the sub-structure work involving shoring excavations and roof support. The roof collapsed because of insufficient support. Ford sued Plant who settled the claim. Plant then brought claims for breach of contract against Clive Adams and JHM. Clive Adams settled. JHM defended alleging that they had been following the instructions given to them by an engineer employed by Ford in the design and execution of the works.

−	The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of the duty to warn and the implied term of skill and care in the context of ~~damages~~ known to the contractor. The court held:	+	The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of the duty to warn and the implied term of skill and care in the context of dangers known to the contractor. The court held:

	* JHM was contractually obliged to carry out the temporary works of supporting the roof in the way in which and to the design by which they were so instructed by Ford.		* JHM was contractually obliged to carry out the temporary works of supporting the roof in the way in which and to the design by which they were so instructed by Ford.
Line 49:		Line 49:
	* Given crucially that the temporary roof support works were obviously dangerous and were known to JHM to be dangerous, JHM's implied obligation to perform with skill and care carried with it an obligation to warn of the dangers which they perceived.		* Given crucially that the temporary roof support works were obviously dangerous and were known to JHM to be dangerous, JHM's implied obligation to perform with skill and care carried with it an obligation to warn of the dangers which they perceived.

−	* The facts that the design and details of the temporary works were imposed by Ford, that Plant had Clive Adams as their consulting engineer, that others were at fault, or that JHM were contractually obliged to do what Ford instructed did not ~~negative~~ or reduce the extent of performance of the implied terms.	+	* The facts that the design and details of the temporary works were imposed by Ford, that Plant had Clive Adams as their consulting engineer, that others were at fault, or that JHM were contractually obliged to do what Ford instructed did not negate or reduce the extent of performance of the implied terms.

−	* JHM's duty extended to giving ~~property~~ warnings about risk.	+	* JHM's duty extended to giving proper warnings about risk.

	The facts of Bolam were concerned with a medical negligence case; however, in Williams, which approved Bolam subject to the three qualifications, the problem was a defective gas fired heating system. Clearly, therefore, the test set out in Bolam is equally applicable to other professional people and those exercising specialist skills: see also Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners below.		The facts of Bolam were concerned with a medical negligence case; however, in Williams, which approved Bolam subject to the three qualifications, the problem was a defective gas fired heating system. Clearly, therefore, the test set out in Bolam is equally applicable to other professional people and those exercising specialist skills: see also Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners below.

Designing Buildings at 16:02, 3 January 2019

2019-01-03T16:02:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 3 January 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	= Introduction =		= Introduction =

−	A contractual obligation to carry out works ~~or services~~ with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence. ~~Fit~~ for purpose ~~is when goods~~ must be ~~fit for purpose ie.~~ good enough to do the job they were ~~designed~~ to do. ~~Reasonable skill and care is when an architect is under an implied duty to carry out their work to exercise reasonable skill and care expected of an ordinarily skilled architect.~~ The important distinction between reasonable skill and care and ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose~~ fitness for purpose] is that ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose~~ fitness for purpose] is an absolute obligation and provided the obligation is clearly established or defined by the ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Contract_document~~ contract document], the party in ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Breach~~ breach] will not be able to plead as a defence that they have discharged their ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Services~~ services] with reasonable skill and care.	+	A contractual obligation to carry out works with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence. It is an implied duty to exercise the level of skill and care expected of another reasonably competent member of the profession.
		+
		+	This is as opposed to a 'fit for purpose' obligation, which requires that works or services must be good enough to do the job they were intended to do.
		+
		+	The important distinction between reasonable skill and care and fitness for purpose is that fitness for purpose is an absolute obligation and provided the obligation is clearly established or defined by the contract document, the party in breach will not be able to plead as a defence that they have discharged their services with reasonable skill and care.

	= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =		= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =

Rhea1910 at 10:54, 2 January 2019

2019-01-02T10:54:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:54, 2 January 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	= Introduction =		= Introduction =

−	A contractual obligation to carry out works or services with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence.	+	A contractual obligation to carry out works or services with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence. Fit for purpose is when goods must be fit for purpose ie. good enough to do the job they were designed to do. Reasonable skill and care is when an architect is under an implied duty to carry out their work to exercise reasonable skill and care expected of an ordinarily skilled architect. The important distinction between reasonable skill and care and [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is that [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is an absolute obligation and provided the obligation is clearly established or defined by the [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Contract_document contract document], the party in [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Breach breach] will not be able to plead as a defence that they have discharged their [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Services services] with reasonable skill and care.
−		+
−	Fit for purpose is when goods must be fit for purpose ie. good enough to do the job they were designed to do. Reasonable skill and care is when an architect is under an implied duty to carry out their work to exercise reasonable skill and care expected of an ordinarily skilled architect.	+
−		+
−	The important distinction between reasonable skill and care and [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is that [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is an absolute obligation and provided the obligation is clearly established or defined by the [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Contract_document contract document], the party in [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Breach breach] will not be able to plead as a defence that they have discharged their [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Services services] with reasonable skill and care.	+

	= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =		= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =

Rhea1910 at 10:53, 2 January 2019

2019-01-02T10:53:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:53, 2 January 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[File:10-construction-trends.jpg]]	+	[[File:10-construction-trends.jpg\|link=File:10-construction-trends.jpg]]

	= Introduction =		= Introduction =

	A contractual obligation to carry out works or services with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence.		A contractual obligation to carry out works or services with reasonable skill and care creates a performance obligation which is analogous to the standard of care in negligence.
		+
		+	Fit for purpose is when goods must be fit for purpose ie. good enough to do the job they were designed to do. Reasonable skill and care is when an architect is under an implied duty to carry out their work to exercise reasonable skill and care expected of an ordinarily skilled architect.
		+
		+	The important distinction between reasonable skill and care and [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is that [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Fitness_for_purpose fitness for purpose] is an absolute obligation and provided the obligation is clearly established or defined by the [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Contract_document contract document], the party in [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Breach breach] will not be able to plead as a defence that they have discharged their [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Services services] with reasonable skill and care.

	= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =		= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =

Editor at 14:56, 23 November 2018

2018-11-23T14:56:16Z

Show changes

Editor at 15:54, 1 October 2018

2018-10-01T15:54:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:54, 1 October 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'... negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’		'... negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’

−	Blyth established the appropriate tests for the behaviour of the general public and not for the behaviour of members of a more limited group who have or hold themselves out as having specialist skills such as architects or engineers. In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (approved	+	Blyth established the appropriate tests for the behaviour of the general public and not for the behaviour of members of a more limited group who have or hold themselves out as having specialist skills such as architects or engineers. In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (approved in Whitehouse v Jordan), the court refined the test established in Blyth in order to accommodate specialist skills. The court applied the following test:
−		+
−	in Whitehouse v Jordan), the court refined the test established in Blyth in order to accommodate specialist skills. The court applied the following test:	+

	'... where you get a situation which involves the use of some specialist skill or competence, then the test of whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus because he has not got this special skill. A man may not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well established law that it is sufficient to be exercising the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.'		'... where you get a situation which involves the use of some specialist skill or competence, then the test of whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus because he has not got this special skill. A man may not possess the highest expert skill at the risk of being found negligent. It is well established law that it is sufficient to be exercising the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.'
Line 36:		Line 34:
	The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of the duty to warn and the implied term of skill and care in the context of damages known to the contractor. The court held:		The Court of Appeal had to consider the principles of the duty to warn and the implied term of skill and care in the context of damages known to the contractor. The court held:

−	* ~~JMH~~ was contractually obliged to carry out the temporary works of supporting the roof in the way in which and to the design by which they were so instructed by Ford.	+	* JHM was contractually obliged to carry out the temporary works of supporting the roof in the way in which and to the design by which they were so instructed by Ford.
	* The factual extent of the performance required by the implied term that a contractor will perform his contract with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor, will depend on all the circumstances.		* The factual extent of the performance required by the implied term that a contractor will perform his contract with the skill and care of an ordinarily competent contractor, will depend on all the circumstances.
−	* Given crucially that the temporary roof support works were obviously dangerous and were known to ~~JMH~~ to be dangerous, ~~JMH~~'s implied obligation to perform with skill and care carried with it an obligation to warn of the dangers which they perceived.	+	* Given crucially that the temporary roof support works were obviously dangerous and were known to JHM to be dangerous, JHM's implied obligation to perform with skill and care carried with it an obligation to warn of the dangers which they perceived.
−	* The facts that the design and details of the temporary works were imposed by Ford, that Plant had Clive Adams as their consulting engineer, that others were at fault, or that ~~JMH~~ were contractually obliged to do what Ford instructed did not negative or reduce the extent of performance of the implied terms.	+	* The facts that the design and details of the temporary works were imposed by Ford, that Plant had Clive Adams as their consulting engineer, that others were at fault, or that JHM were contractually obliged to do what Ford instructed did not negative or reduce the extent of performance of the implied terms.
−	* ~~JMH~~'s duty extended to giving property warnings about risk.	+	* JHM's duty extended to giving property warnings about risk.

	The facts of Bolam were concerned with a medical negligence case; how-ever in Williams, which approved Bolam subject to the three qualifications, the problem was a defective gas fired heating system. Clearly, therefore, the test set out in Bolam is equally applicable to other professional people and those exercising specialist skills: see also Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners below.		The facts of Bolam were concerned with a medical negligence case; how-ever in Williams, which approved Bolam subject to the three qualifications, the problem was a defective gas fired heating system. Clearly, therefore, the test set out in Bolam is equally applicable to other professional people and those exercising specialist skills: see also Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners below.

−	An error of judgment or the selection of the wrong method where there is a genuine difference of specialists’ opinion will not necessarily amount to negligence. In Robinson v The Post Office, R, a doctor in general practice, injected a patient with an anti-tetanus serum without first administering a test dose. At the relevant time, medical opinion was moving against the use of anti-tetanus serums generally. The Court of Appeal held that since R's failure to give a test dose was contrary to accepted procedure, he had been negligent, but that no damage had been caused as the result of the test would have been negative, and that, since at the time there was still a responsible body of medical opinion who favoured anti-tetanus serum, he had not been negligent in using it. Similarly, in the case of Perry v Tendring District Council and Others which dealt with, inter alia, the failure of a consultant engineer to design foundations that would be unaffected by long term soil heave, the court considered that the standard of care depended on 'what was to be expected of the competent engineer at the material date' (i.e time he designed the foundations). This is the 'state of the art' defence. There was conflicting expert witness evidence. One expert engineer personally knew of heave but was only able to refer to one textbook intended for engineers that dealt with it. Another expert had not read that textbook and thought that engineers generally would not have known of heave although that particular expert had expressed a contrary view some 12 years after the material date. Two other engineers stated categorically that they had never heard of heave. Judge Newey stated:	+	An error of judgment or the selection of the wrong method where there is a genuine difference of specialists’ opinion will not necessarily amount to negligence. In Robinson v The Post Office, R, a doctor in general practice, injected a patient with an anti-tetanus serum without first administering a test dose. At the relevant time, medical opinion was moving against the use of anti-tetanus serums generally. The Court of Appeal held that since R's failure to give a test dose was contrary to accepted procedure, he had been negligent, but that no damage had been caused as the result of the test would have been negative, and that, since at the time there was still a responsible body of medical opinion who favoured anti-tetanus serum, he had not been negligent in using it.
		+
		+	Similarly, in the case of Perry v Tendring District Council and Others which dealt with, inter alia, the failure of a consultant engineer to design foundations that would be unaffected by long term soil heave, the court considered that the standard of care depended on 'what was to be expected of the competent engineer at the material date' (i.e time he designed the foundations). This is the 'state of the art' defence. There was conflicting expert witness evidence. One expert engineer personally knew of heave but was only able to refer to one textbook intended for engineers that dealt with it. Another expert had not read that textbook and thought that engineers generally would not have known of heave although that particular expert had expressed a contrary view some 12 years after the material date. Two other engineers stated categorically that they had never heard of heave. Judge Newey stated:

	'On the totality of the expert evidence I must, however reluctantly, conclude that at the material time a competent engineer would not have known of long term heave'.		'On the totality of the expert evidence I must, however reluctantly, conclude that at the material time a competent engineer would not have known of long term heave'.
Line 52:		Line 52:
	'No doubt all this was true, and bearing in mind the consequences that might ensue if such a mast collapsed - fortunately no-one was killed or injured at Emley Moor, though part of the mast fell across a road and it might have fallen on a farmhouse - it was in my opinion incumbent on [the designer] to exercise a very high degree of care’		'No doubt all this was true, and bearing in mind the consequences that might ensue if such a mast collapsed - fortunately no-one was killed or injured at Emley Moor, though part of the mast fell across a road and it might have fallen on a farmhouse - it was in my opinion incumbent on [the designer] to exercise a very high degree of care’

−	There are conflicting judicial decisions on the issue of whether a professional man who specialises within his profession has a higher duty than the non-specialist. In Wimpey Construction UK v Poole a consultant held himself out as having especially high skills and was retained on that basis. The court rejected the argument that the test in such circumstances should be that of a man exercising or professing to have especially high professional skills. However in Ashcroft v Mersey Regional Health Authority, the court found that the more skilled a person, the more the care which is to be expected of him, but the test should be applied without gloss either way.	+	There are conflicting judicial decisions on the issue of whether a professional man who specialises within his profession has a higher duty than the non-specialist. In Wimpey Construction UK v Poole a consultant held himself out as having especially high skills and was retained on that basis. The court rejected the argument that the test in such circumstances should be that of a man exercising or professing to have especially high professional skills. However, in Ashcroft v Mersey Regional Health Authority, the court found that the more skilled a person, the more the care which is to be expected of him, but the test should be applied without gloss either way.

	Competency will invariably be a matter of expert evidence and opinion. However, in the last resort, the courts consider that they have discretion to reject expert evidence as to what is an acceptable practice within a profession. In Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital, Lord Templeman stated:		Competency will invariably be a matter of expert evidence and opinion. However, in the last resort, the courts consider that they have discretion to reject expert evidence as to what is an acceptable practice within a profession. In Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital, Lord Templeman stated:
Line 62:		Line 62:
	= Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners =		= Greaves & Co (Contractors) Ltd v Baynham Meikle and Partners =

−	The express conditions of the principal contract or the collateral warranty may determine the standard of performance. What, however, is the position if the contract is silent on this particular point? In the Greaves case, there was a suggestion that a designer's obligation might extend beyond reasonable skill and care to fitness for purpose. The facts of the Greaves case concerned G, a building contractor who undertook to design and construct on a package deal basis, a new factory, warehouse and offices for Alexander Duckham Limited. The warehouse was to be used for the storage of barrels of oil. G contracted with B, structural engineers, to design the structure of the warehouse. G informed B that the floors of the warehouse had to take the weight of forklift trucks carrying barrels of oil. After completion and occupation, cracks began to appear in the floors of the warehouse. It was established that the failure of the floors was due to vibrations caused by the use of the forklift trucks. The issues before the court turned upon whether B were in breach of their obligation to carry out their design works with reasonable skill and care, or whether B were in breach of an implied term of the contract between G and B that B's design should be fit for its purpose, namely the movement of loaded forklift trucks. It will be appreciated that a term which is implied as a matter of fact does not have the consequences of a term that is implied as a matter of law in so far as the former only relates to the particular bargain struck between the parties to the contract whereas the latter applies to all bargains unless excluded by the express terms of the contract. In the Greaves case, the judgment at first instance appeared to suggest that a fitness for purpose obligation was to be implied as a matter of law. On first reading, this is also the impression given by the judgment of Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal. However, on its facts, the Greaves case does not create a universal principle of fitness for purpose on the part of designers, in that the court found that whilst there was a contractual term that the designers should design a warehouse that was fit for its purpose, this term was implied as a matter of fact and not law. The court also found that B's design was negligent, that is to say in breach of the obligation to carry out their services with reasonable skill and care.	+	The express conditions of the principal contract or the collateral warranty may determine the standard of performance. What, however, is the position if the contract is silent on this particular point? In the Greaves case, there was a suggestion that a designer's obligation might extend beyond reasonable skill and care to fitness for purpose.
		+
		+	The facts of the Greaves case concerned G, a building contractor who undertook to design and construct on a package deal basis, a new factory, warehouse and offices for Alexander Duckham Limited. The warehouse was to be used for the storage of barrels of oil. G contracted with B, structural engineers, to design the structure of the warehouse. G informed B that the floors of the warehouse had to take the weight of forklift trucks carrying barrels of oil. After completion and occupation, cracks began to appear in the floors of the warehouse. It was established that the failure of the floors was due to vibrations caused by the use of the forklift trucks.
		+
		+	The issues before the court turned upon whether B were in breach of their obligation to carry out their design works with reasonable skill and care, or whether B were in breach of an implied term of the contract between G and B that B's design should be fit for its purpose, namely the movement of loaded forklift trucks. It will be appreciated that a term which is implied as a matter of fact does not have the consequences of a term that is implied as a matter of law in so far as the former only relates to the particular bargain struck between the parties to the contract whereas the latter applies to all bargains unless excluded by the express terms of the contract.
		+
		+	In the Greaves case, the judgment at first instance appeared to suggest that a fitness for purpose obligation was to be implied as a matter of law. On first reading, this is also the impression given by the judgment of Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal. However, on its facts, the Greaves case does not create a universal principle of fitness for purpose on the part of designers, in that the court found that whilst there was a contractual term that the designers should design a warehouse that was fit for its purpose, this term was implied as a matter of fact and not law. The court also found that B's design was negligent, that is to say in breach of the obligation to carry out their services with reasonable skill and care.

	= George Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) Limited and Burn Associates =		= George Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) Limited and Burn Associates =
Line 71:		Line 77:
	* was there an implied warranty or term that the material used for the floor would be fit for use in a wet shower room?		* was there an implied warranty or term that the material used for the floor would be fit for use in a wet shower room?

−	The judge at first instance found against C in respect of the first issue. However, on the second issue the judge found that B was in breach of an implied warranty that they would provide 'as safe a floor as was practicable in the expertise of the profession to provide a safe floor for these men in these conditions'. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that although a party contracting for both the design and supply of a product will usually be under an implied contractual duty to ensure that it is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is intended, where the contracting party is a professional man providing advice or designs alone (i.e. without supplying any product), no warranty will normally be implied beyond a term that reasonable skill and care will be taken in giving the advice or preparing the design. There was nothing in the present case to require the implication of any term other than a duty to take reasonable care and skill in preparing the design.	+	The judge at first instance found against C in respect of the first issue. However, on the second issue the judge found that B was in breach of an implied warranty that they would provide 'as safe a floor as was practicable in the expertise of the profession to provide a safe floor for these men in these conditions'.
		+
		+	On appeal, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that although a party contracting for both the design and supply of a product will usually be under an implied contractual duty to ensure that it is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is intended, where the contracting party is a professional man providing advice or designs alone (i.e. without supplying any product), no warranty will normally be implied beyond a term that reasonable skill and care will be taken in giving the advice or preparing the design. There was nothing in the present case to require the implication of any term other than a duty to take reasonable care and skill in preparing the design.

	If the party being called upon to enter into a collateral warranty is an architect or engineer with a design function, and their principal contract expressly provides for a performance obligation of reasonable skill and care or is silent on this matter, for that party to enter into a collateral warranty with a fitness for purpose obligation will be increasing their liabilities.		If the party being called upon to enter into a collateral warranty is an architect or engineer with a design function, and their principal contract expressly provides for a performance obligation of reasonable skill and care or is silent on this matter, for that party to enter into a collateral warranty with a fitness for purpose obligation will be increasing their liabilities.
Line 83:		Line 91:
	It is important to note that if an architect or engineer extends his potential liability by entering into a collateral warranty providing for a fitness for purpose obligation, there may well be serious repercussions in respect of their professional indemnity policy.		It is important to note that if an architect or engineer extends his potential liability by entering into a collateral warranty providing for a fitness for purpose obligation, there may well be serious repercussions in respect of their professional indemnity policy.

−	NB See also The Supply of Goods and Services Act.	+	See also The Supply of Goods and Services Act.
−		+
−	~~= Find out more =~~	+

−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =

	* 199 Knightsbridge Development Ltd v WSP UK Ltd.		* 199 Knightsbridge Development Ltd v WSP UK Ltd.
Line 97:		Line 103:
	* Defective Premises Act.		* Defective Premises Act.
	* Defects.		* Defects.
		+	* Duty.
	* Fitness for purpose.		* Fitness for purpose.
	* Good faith.		* Good faith.

Designing Buildings: Reverted edits by 2.218.85.73 (talk) to last revision by Editor

2018-02-03T23:56:33Z

Reverted edits by 2.218.85.73 (talk) to last revision by Editor

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 3 February 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =		= Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company =

−	~~cool~~ The court considered the standard of care in negligence in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company and stated:	+	The court considered the standard of care in negligence in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company and stated:

	'... negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’		'... negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do’