- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 06 Dec 2019
A reasonable objection to a state of affairs is to object to or refuse to agree to carry out a particular task under instructions or an order – and having valid reasons for doing so. For example, a person may object to being ordered to fight for their country on the grounds of being a pacifist.
- Unknown or unknowable ground conditions.
- Delays not requiring an extension of time, e.g weather-related.
- Responsibilities for surveying previous work or existing structures.
- The construction process generally.
- Major variations.
- The work of consultants subcontractors and suppliers.
This is why some contracts and sub-contracts (such as JCT contracts) can, in certain circumstances, allow the contractor / subcontracator to raise an objection, such as to a variation order, if they have reasonable grounds.
A typical example might be where the client (employer) selects a sub-contractor with particular expertise, while leaving responsibility for their performance with the main contractor. Where the selected subcontractor was not pre-named in the contract (and is therefore now post-named) the contractor is able to raise reasonable objection within a certain time limit (often 7 days).
- The specialist has a poor safety record.
- There are reasonable grounds for believing that the specialist may not be financially secure, solvent, reliable or technically competent.
- The tender sum is not believed to be financially viable.
- The programme is deemed to be unreasonable.
In the past, substantial variations that have changed the identity of the contract or even negated it completely have given contractors the right to reasonable objection, if an additional sum for the works could not be agreed on. However, this may no longer be as certain to succeed, thanks to a legal precedent from the 1990s.
In McAlpine Humberoak Limited v McDermott International,  it was established that even in a situation where the extra works involved substantial changes, they did not necessarily alter or transform the identity of the contract. Therefore, the contractor (in this case for an offshore installation) was bound to the original contract and the objection overruled.
- Site access.
- Limitations on working space.
- Limitations on working hours.
- Changes to the specific order of the works.
Clause 5.1.1, made clear that the following allow a right of reasonable objection:
- Changes to the design, quality or quantity of the works.
- Changes to the kind or standard of materials or goods.
- Removal from the site of work or materials that are not defective.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
Featured articles and news
Insights from New York.
A quick introduction to a very complicated subject.
CIOB suggests the economic reach of construction is double the official figures.
The first US building to achieve BREEAM Outstanding In-Use.
70 buildings from 70 years of Concrete Quarterly. Book review.
Conserving the iron roof at the Albert Dock.
Delivering an infrastructure revolution.
The admissibility of evidence.
How many can you name? 37 anyone?
CIOB respond to the points-based system.
When is the weather considered 'exceptionally adverse'?