AboutPeter M. Elliott Expertise First response to queries regarding extensions of time, variations orders, site instructions and payment using FIDIC and other forms of Conditions of Contract, based on English Law, and derivatives only.
Experience Value . . .
It's unwise to pay too much, but it's unwise to pay too little. When you pay too much you lose a little money, that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing you bought it to do.
The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot. It can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it's well to add something for the risk you run.
And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
. . . John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)
"We are too poor to buy something cheap"
.Romanian Proverb 2002
A lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit.
George Herbert (English poet 1593-1633)
I said it in Hebrew, I said it in Dutch,
I said it in German and Greek:
But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)
That English is what you speak!" Hunting of the Snark - Lewis Caroll
Match your presentation to the reader!
The joy of food lasts but an hour, of sleep but a day, of a woman, but a month, but the joy of a building lasts a lifetime. Syrian proverb.
Comments and observations leading to improvements in the translation of FIDIC Red & Yellow books into Romanian prior to approval by FIDIC (reference 'Preface to the Romanian edition')
Question UK law. dear mr elliot,
i really hope you can help me, i am a 2nd yr student from the university of london, and i have just been dumped with my first case ever.
the story goes that a mr. chow had leased the ground floor of a building so he could use it as a restaurant. later, he also leased the ground floor of the building next door, from the same land lord...within a few months he decided a
that he wanted to connect the two ground floor plots to each other so that his restaurant could expand. the landlord gave him permission for this, and he proceeded to get planning permission to knock down a main structural wall in between the two buildings.
a mr. hunt was hired as the builder, with his group. instead of mr.chow getting his own private insurace for the building work, he told mr. hunt to get insured, which he did do.
so the construction work began, but the builders removed small parts of the scaffolding in order to make it easier for them to work. within a few days, the ceiling had moved by about 6 cm's and mr chow got really worried!
the tenants above were also scared of their aartments collapsing.
the landlord sued mr chow for £55.000, a claim which mr chow did not try to defend.
now though, mr chow is suing mr hunt and his group for the buildings collapse, due to the removal of scafolding.
when our companys own surveyor went to the property, he found that there had already been a bit of wear and tear on the buildings, including cracks in the upper apartments. this is the arguement that mr hunt is using now aswell. he is saying that there is no way to prove whether the damage of the ceiling moving by 6cm was his fault due to neglect or was inevitably going to happen due to the buildings condition.
how can i prove that he was responsible fully?
please help me!!!!
thank you for taking your yime to read this
Answer Hi Ranna,
As a general rule, I don't do homework questions, but you caught me on a quiet day so here are some thoughts for further development.
There are cracks and then there are cracks. Firstly, 6 cm is a lot of movement for a ceiling, especially in a short time. You do not say how big the other cracks were, but I assume they were relatively minor. You do not say what material is used for the building, concrete, timber and brick. It is the sort of movement, which might not be important structurally, but which would be noticed before it became dangerous. Let us assume that it is at the edge of the space, near the new opening. Let us assume that the floor above is made from timber planks on wooden joists with a plaster ceiling under. There will be a noticeable gap between the skirting board and the timber planks on the floor above. The existence of old cracks is a diversion and not relevant to the current case.
Are the gaps and cracks live, still growing, or dead, no movement? If the gaps and cracks are live, then it is likely that they were caused by the recent work. A practical solution would be to replace the scaffold and see if the ceiling can be jacked back into position. If it can be jacked into position, even partially, there is a prima facie case that the removal caused the movement, and that Mr Hunt and group are responsible.
You do not define 'responsible fully'. The next problem is to determine the extent of their responsibility. Unless it was specifically stated in the Contract, they have no duty to repair existing cracks, but they do have a duty to return the building to its original condition, if damage is caused by their action or inaction.
Good luck with your course, but I hope that you have learnt how to use the spell checker before you graduate.
