Construction Law/Sub-clause 3.2
Sub-clause 3.2 states that the Engineer is not permitted to delegate his authority under Sub-Clause 3.5, except with the agreement of both Parties.
What's happening if the Engineer delegates his authority, receives no confirmation whatsoever from the Parties and after a long period of time from the notice of delegation, when a Dispute arises due to a determination, one of the parties alleges that the Engineer's determination is not valid due to the non compliance with Sub-Clause 3.2.
Can this situation be considered as Parties mutual acceptance of the delegation although FIDIC is silent on this matter?
Thank you for this question.
In the circumstances you describe I suggest that each action taken by the Engineer through its representative is a breach of contract and each can be actioned separately; however you should observe the notice requirements of sub-clause 20.1 for example. Furthermore, he fact of an instruction or determination being made by the Engineer's representative does not always mean that the instruction/determination is wrong.
If the Engineer's representative issues an instruction you should challenge it and ask for the Engineer's confirmation. Similarly with a determination made by the Engineer's representative. The Engineer can either validate the instruction or determination of its representative or it can over turn the instruction/determination and re-issue.
In the circumstances, are you challenging the determination merely because it was issued by an unauthorised representative or because it is fundamentally wrong? If the former is the case, you should be cautious.
I hope that this assists you.
Follow me on Twitter: @CernoOrg
For my regular industry newsletter e-mail to email@example.com, stating SUBSCRIBE in the subject line
Training and consulting services are available, bespoke to companies and individuals.
John Dowse can be contacted by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org (When e-mailing, please include “AllExperts” in the subject line.)