Vicarious performance - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 09:09, 6 November 2020

2020-11-06T09:09:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 6 November 2020
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)		* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)

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

Designing Buildings at 07:09, 4 February 2020

2020-02-04T07:09:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 4 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{\|		{\|
−	\| [[File:Bowker-St-back-during-construction.jpg]]	+	\| [[File:Bowker-St-back-during-construction.jpg\|link=File:Bowker-St-back-during-construction.jpg]]
	\|}		\|}

Line 14:		Line 14:
	Where the work is of a non-specialist nature, the right of the contractor to employ a sub-contractor is normally implied.		Where the work is of a non-specialist nature, the right of the contractor to employ a sub-contractor is normally implied.

−	British Waggon Co. & Parkgate Waggon Co. v. Lea (1880), is often viewed internationally as being the authoritative case. The original contractor (Parkgate) contracted to keep railway carriages in repair for Lea & Co. over a number of years. The original contract did not call for the repairs being necessarily effected by the Parkgate company itself, but could be undertaken by any company capable of completing the works to a similar standard. The Parkgate Company had arranged with the British Waggon company that the latter should execute the repairs. Therefore, on liquidation of Parkgate, the benefit and burden of the contract was assigned to British Waggon. Lea could not refuse performance despite the assignment. ~~Cockburn CJ stated:~~	+	British Waggon Co. & Parkgate Waggon Co. v. Lea (1880), is often viewed internationally as being the authoritative case. The original contractor (Parkgate) contracted to keep railway carriages in repair for Lea & Co. over a number of years. The original contract did not call for the repairs being necessarily effected by the Parkgate company itself, but could be undertaken by any company capable of completing the works to a similar standard. The Parkgate Company had arranged with the British Waggon company that the latter should execute the repairs. Therefore, on liquidation of Parkgate, the benefit and burden of the contract was assigned to British Waggon. Lea could not refuse performance despite the assignment.

−	'All that the hirers, the defendants, cared for in this stipulation was the wagons should be kept in repair; it was indifferent to them by whom the repairs should be done. Thus if, without going into liquidation, or assigning these contracts, the company entered into a contract with a competent party to do the repairs, and so procured them to be done, we cannot think that this would have been a departure from the terms of the contract to keep the wagons in repair.'	+	Cockburn CJ stated: 'All that the hirers, the defendants, cared for in this stipulation was the wagons should be kept in repair; it was indifferent to them by whom the repairs should be done. Thus if, without going into liquidation, or assigning these contracts, the company entered into a contract with a competent party to do the repairs, and so procured them to be done, we cannot think that this would have been a departure from the terms of the contract to keep the wagons in repair.'

	The ruling on this case was based on the fact that Parkgate was originally bound by the contract to undertake the repairs, thereby producing a result (not necessarily by its own efforts) but, if it wanted to, by vicarious performance through a sub-contractor or otherwise. By getting the repairs satisfactorily completed by a third party, Parkgate had discharged its obligations of repair under the contract.		The ruling on this case was based on the fact that Parkgate was originally bound by the contract to undertake the repairs, thereby producing a result (not necessarily by its own efforts) but, if it wanted to, by vicarious performance through a sub-contractor or otherwise. By getting the repairs satisfactorily completed by a third party, Parkgate had discharged its obligations of repair under the contract.

−	~~===~~ NB: The British Waggon ruling may not apply where the contractor has been chosen for their specialist skills, reputation and ability to perform complex operations efficiently. ~~===~~	+	NB: The British Waggon ruling may not apply where the contractor has been chosen for their specialist skills, reputation and ability to perform complex operations efficiently.

	The contractor's liability for the defaults of the sub-contractor may arise in either tort or in contract.		The contractor's liability for the defaults of the sub-contractor may arise in either tort or in contract.
Line 42:		Line 42:
	* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)		* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)

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

Editor at 14:03, 31 January 2020

2020-01-31T14:03:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, 31 January 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'Vicarious performance' refers to the carrying out of contractual obligations by a person ~~that~~ is not party to a contract, usually by sub-contract or assignment. So, for example, performance by a sub-contractor constitutes vicarious performance on behalf of the main contractor, who remains fully responsible for the work, except where the main contract provides otherwise.	+	{\|
		+	\| [[File:Bowker-St-back-during-construction.jpg]]
		+	\|}
		+
		+	'Vicarious performance' refers to the carrying out of contractual obligations by a person who is not party to a contract, usually by sub-contract or assignment. So, for example, performance by a sub-contractor constitutes vicarious performance on behalf of the main contractor, who remains fully responsible for the work, except where the main contract provides otherwise.

	Whether the contractor is allowed to delegate vicarious performance of either all or some of their obligations to a third party will depend on the terms of the contract.		Whether the contractor is allowed to delegate vicarious performance of either all or some of their obligations to a third party will depend on the terms of the contract.
Line 10:		Line 14:
	Where the work is of a non-specialist nature, the right of the contractor to employ a sub-contractor is normally implied.		Where the work is of a non-specialist nature, the right of the contractor to employ a sub-contractor is normally implied.

−	'British Waggon Co. v Lea' (1880), is often viewed as being the authoritative case. The original contractor contracted to keep railway carriages in repair over a number of years. On liquidation, the benefit and burden of the contract was assigned to British Waggon. Lea could not refuse performance despite the assignment. Cockburn CJ stated:	+	British Waggon Co. & Parkgate Waggon Co. v. Lea (1880), is often viewed internationally as being the authoritative case. The original contractor (Parkgate) contracted to keep railway carriages in repair for Lea & Co. over a number of years. The original contract did not call for the repairs being necessarily effected by the Parkgate company itself, but could be undertaken by any company capable of completing the works to a similar standard. The Parkgate Company had arranged with the British Waggon company that the latter should execute the repairs. Therefore, on liquidation of Parkgate, the benefit and burden of the contract was assigned to British Waggon. Lea could not refuse performance despite the assignment. Cockburn CJ stated:

	'All that the hirers, the defendants, cared for in this stipulation was the wagons should be kept in repair; it was indifferent to them by whom the repairs should be done. Thus if, without going into liquidation, or assigning these contracts, the company entered into a contract with a competent party to do the repairs, and so procured them to be done, we cannot think that this would have been a departure from the terms of the contract to keep the wagons in repair.'		'All that the hirers, the defendants, cared for in this stipulation was the wagons should be kept in repair; it was indifferent to them by whom the repairs should be done. Thus if, without going into liquidation, or assigning these contracts, the company entered into a contract with a competent party to do the repairs, and so procured them to be done, we cannot think that this would have been a departure from the terms of the contract to keep the wagons in repair.'

−	The ~~British Waggon~~ ruling ~~may not apply where~~ the ~~contractor has been chosen for~~ its ~~specialist skills~~, ~~reputation and ability~~ to ~~perform complex operations efficiently~~.	+	The ruling on this case was based on the fact that Parkgate was originally bound by the contract to undertake the repairs, thereby producing a result (not necessarily by its own efforts) but, if it wanted to, by vicarious performance through a sub-contractor or otherwise. By getting the repairs satisfactorily completed by a third party, Parkgate had discharged its obligations of repair under the contract.

−	The contractor~~'s liability~~ for ~~the defaults of the sub-contractor may arise in either tort or in contract~~.	+	=== NB: The British Waggon ruling may not apply where the contractor has been chosen for their specialist skills, reputation and ability to perform complex operations efficiently. ===

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	The contractor's liability for the defaults of the sub-contractor may arise in either tort or in contract.

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

	* Assignment.		* Assignment.
Line 34:		Line 38:
	* Sub-contractor.		* Sub-contractor.

−	=== External references ===	+	= External references =

	* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)		* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)

	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Appointments]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]		[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Appointments]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]

Editor at 14:25, 28 July 2016

2016-07-28T14:25:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 28 July 2016
Line 23:		Line 23:

	* Assignment.		* Assignment.
−	* Back-to-back provisions in construction contracts.	+	* [[Back-to-back_provisions_in_construction_contacts\|Back-to-back provisions in construction contracts.]]
		+	* Common law.
	* Construction contracts.		* Construction contracts.
	* Contractor.		* Contractor.

Editor: Created page with "'Vicarious performance' refers to the carrying out of contractual obligations by a person that is not party to a contract, usually by sub-contract or assignment. So, for example,..."

2016-07-18T13:03:25Z

Created page with "'Vicarious performance' refers to the carrying out of contractual obligations by a person that is not party to a contract, usually by sub-contract or assignment. So, for example,..."

New page

'Vicarious performance' refers to the carrying out of contractual obligations by a person that is not party to a contract, usually by sub-contract or assignment. So, for example, performance by a sub-contractor constitutes vicarious performance on behalf of the main contractor, who remains fully responsible for the work, except where the main contract provides otherwise.

Whether the contractor is allowed to delegate vicarious performance of either all or some of their obligations to a third party will depend on the terms of the contract.

Vicarious performance of the work and whether it is permitted is usually decided based upon whether it either:

* Does not matter who does the work.
* Or, the contract expressly prohibits it.

Where the work is of a non-specialist nature, the right of the contractor to employ a sub-contractor is normally implied.

'British Waggon Co. v Lea' (1880), is often viewed as being the authoritative case. The original contractor contracted to keep railway carriages in repair over a number of years. On liquidation, the benefit and burden of the contract was assigned to British Waggon. Lea could not refuse performance despite the assignment. Cockburn CJ stated:

'All that the hirers, the defendants, cared for in this stipulation was the wagons should be kept in repair; it was indifferent to them by whom the repairs should be done. Thus if, without going into liquidation, or assigning these contracts, the company entered into a contract with a competent party to do the repairs, and so procured them to be done, we cannot think that this would have been a departure from the terms of the contract to keep the wagons in repair.'

The British Waggon ruling may not apply where the contractor has been chosen for its specialist skills, reputation and ability to perform complex operations efficiently.

The contractor's liability for the defaults of the sub-contractor may arise in either tort or in contract.

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

* Assignment.
* Back-to-back provisions in construction contracts.
* Construction contracts.
* Contractor.
* Contractor vs supplier.
* Domestic sub-contractor.
* Named specialist work.
* Named sub-contractor.
* Nominated sub-contractor.
* Sub-contractor.

=== External references ===

* 'Construction Contract Law: The Essentials', ADRIAANSE, A., Palgrave MacMillan (2005)

[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]] [[Category:Appointments]] [[Category:Contracts_/_payment]]