No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

Contract clauses that deny a contractor entitlement to an extension of time for concurrent delays caused by both employer and contractor are valid in principle.  In North Midland Building Ltd -V- Cyden Homes Ltd [1] the Court of Appeal of England and Wales has ruled that such clauses do not offend the common law prevention principle.  Nor do they give rise to an implied term to prohibit the imposition of delay damages that may result.

By |21/05/2019|Delay, English Law, featured, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on No EOT for Concurrent Delay, if so Agreed

1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 05 – Nominated Subcontractors

Clause 5 defines a "nominated Sub-Contractor" and allows the Contractor to object on reasonable grounds. If the Employer insists on employing the Sub-Contractor, it must indemnify the Contractor. Payments to the Sub-Contractor are certified by the Engineer.

By |01/08/2016|Commentaries on the 1999 Suite, Knowledge Hub|Comments Off on 1999 Suite: Commentary on Clause 05 – Nominated Subcontractors
Go to Top