Contractual Protection for Contractors

This assignment delves into the legal framework protecting contractors when employers breach their contractual obligations under the JCT SBC/Q 2016 contract. It analyzes specific provisions within the contract and relevant common law principles to determine if adequate protection is afforded to contractors in situations involving employer breaches. The discussion highlights key obligations of employers, potential consequences for breaches, remedies available to contractors, and the role of architects in resolving disputes.

Running head: CONSTRUCTION LAW
Construction law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CONSTRUCTION LAW
Question: The following exercise is designed to encourage reflective evaluation of key
contractual provisions of JCT SBC/Q 2011. Exercise on employer’s obligations under JCT
2016, Having regard to published commentaries and other explanatory material relating to
JCT SBC/Q 2016 and the relevant common law, consider whether the provisions of JCT
SBC/Q 2016 and the common law give adequate protection to a contractor where the employer
is in breach of its obligations.
The obligation between a couple of parties that binds them into fulfilling certain terms
and conditions favoring their situation is a contract, the definition is stated in the laws of
‘Obligation’. The contractual terms are based on basically two fundamental conditions, offer and
an unconditional acceptance. The Implied, Express and terms incorporated will hold the many
conditions necessary for binding a lawful contract1.
The mutual acceptance of certain obligations by parties involved with accordance to law
is a contact; the court rightfully watches over the use and lawfulness of such contractual terms
and manages them. When any of the parties neglect a certain term, it would be called a breach.
The contractual architect has the right to pass provisions needed (JCT 2016 suite in this case)
when a breach is notice, if the architect’s remedies are unacceptable, the parties may reach out to
court.
When single or multiple terms are broken in a contract by a party, then, it is referred to as
a contractual breach. In case of a breach, it is expected of a party to firstly identify the very
1 It is noted that is some scenarios, pre-contractual statements form part of the contract which may be based on
the intent of the parties as seen through the eyes of a reasonable third party, Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS
844

2CONSTRUCTION LAW
conditions that were broken. It is also well stated in the suit of JCT 2016 that the conditions so
mentioned are on the employer explicitly and a contractor can heed law of a breach is seen. A
breach will always have consequences; this may include awards and possible termination by the
aggrieved party. The breach by itself won’t cause termination, but a court case will2.
The remunerations for breach though are given only after the actions are done, giving the
aggrieved party the power to terminate it and reach out for damage compensations. The
agreement ends when all conditions are met and enacted with precision and care, making its
performance satisfactory3. An agreement can be frustrated by common law the conditions are
such that executing the terms is impossible. When frustrated, the court frees the parties involved
from the contractual bounds and executes its termination.
Certain obligations like obligation for site possession (clause 2.4), obligation for site
administration (appointment clause 3.5.1; Clause 3.25 for management regulation and
construction) the instructional obligation (Clause 2.12.1), providing info and payment
obligations in contracts are mentioned in duties of Employer’s.
In JCT suite of 2016, it was seen that acts are omitted, and then a considerable period of
delay is given resulting from any breach in contractual terms. Such obligation delays are directly
or indirectly related to force, instructional compliance, site possession deferments (clause
2.29.12), supervision and intervention of Government bodies in the agreement. It was also
mentioned that the events that make relevance lesser now due to certain amendments such as the
4th under the suite of JCT 98. This also includes those prevention, whether impediment or used as
default.
2Photo Production v Securicor [1980] AC 87
3 Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] AC 5

3CONSTRUCTION LAW
It may be referred to as a breach if the employer urges the contract to make changes in
contractual terms in order for him to take actions as he pleases, but the suit of JCT 2016 has
allowed the changes to happen. In such a case, the contract can be given extra pay for making
due with excess work and also an extension of deadline (Clause5.1.). The JCT 2016 has
extension deal provider in its clause 2.28 that works with a relevant event mechanism that may
allow the contractor with extra time. However, such a deal requires the contractor to prove the
breach first.
In case a reason is judged as reasonable and practical, the architect can have the power to
make decisions under the clause 2.28.1 as judged by another clause 2.28.3, and is given time for
every event of relevance and omissions. The architect has to make rightful resolutions for the
situations with the provided provisions. In case the architect/contract fails to make hay with his
project, the court draws a conclusion and takes decisions with the said terms. A verbal contract is
judged with exactly what the given parties might have stated, if written, the law court of law will
read it thoroughly. The scope will be the final matter of decision making including the precision
of the nature of contractual terms.
Compensation or a lawful remedy does not mean that the guilty party is bound by law to
perform its actions more carefully; it states that the aggrieved is to be well compensated for all
the damages inflicted on them. With the above analysis, it is clear that JCT suite 2016 provisions
and common law are enough to manage the safety of the contractor when a term is broken by the
employer.

4CONSTRUCTION LAW
Bibliography
Bannerman v White (1861) 10 CBNS 844
Photo Production v Securicor [1980] AC 87
Union Eagle Ltd v Golden Achievement Ltd [1997] AC 5