Construction Law: Disputes and Legal Implications in JCT 11 SBQ Contracts

This report examines legal issues arising from disputes in construction projects governed by the JCT 11 Standard Building Contract with Quantities (SBQ). It analyzes three scenarios involving a basement floor with cracks and water penetration, a collapsed internal wall, and cracked foundations due to improper material selection. The report explores the legal positions of the employer and contractor in each case, applying relevant contract provisions and common law principles. It delves into concepts like breach of contract, negligence, and the liability of specialists, providing case examples to illustrate the legal principles involved.

Construction Law

Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Question 29.......................................................................................................................................4
(a).................................................................................................................................................4
(b).................................................................................................................................................7
(c).................................................................................................................................................9
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................11
References......................................................................................................................................12

Introduction
Laws play an integral role in the business environment and the working. The report provides the
discussion regarding the application of the legal system in the United Kingdom. In this report,
the legal implication is provided in relation to the construction decisions. The laws which are
referred under it are related to tort, laws related to land, company laws, employment laws and the
contract laws. All the regulations related to the breach of terms of the contract are analysed
effectively in this report. In this report, all the process related to the formation, breach and
remedies are provided to develop the effective understanding. The scenario is analysed and then
the solutions are provided accordingly to develop the good understanding of the construction
laws. Further, this report also provides the different form of methods used in relation to contract
resolutions. All the laws are analysed and the effective judgments and the regulations are
provided to develop the effective understanding of the construction laws.

Question 29
During construction of an office block for a large insurance company, a number of disputes arise
between the parties in a contract let under the JCT 11 Standard Building Contract with
Quantities (SBQ). Advise the employer of the legal position in each case using the provisions of
the contract or the common law:
(a)
The basement floor has developed cracks and water penetration. To repair this, expenditure on remedial
work is required. The contractor refuses to accept responsibility and insists that it is entitled to a variation to
carry out repairs. The contract specification requires `watertight construction' and states that 'the contractor
is responsible for maintaining the floor in this condition.'
In the case the basement floor has got cracks and water has started leaking out of it which shows a poor
construction done by the contractor. Even after the complaint the contractor refused to repair the
construction. It was mentioned in the contract that they need watertight construction. It was also stated
that the contractor is responsible for repairing the construction if the floor leaks out. The contractor is not
ready to do the needful which is to be done so as to avoid the loss occurred to the other party.
ISSUE:
Whether the contractor is liable to do the repairs on the floor where there were cracks
LAW:
The laws which would be applicable in the above scenario are contract law and consumer law
(Andrews, 2015). Under contract law there is breach of contract because it was clearly stated in the
contract that the construction which is being done must be a watertight construction means that there
should be no chance of water to come inside as it could spoil the place and responsibility in failure of
this would be held on the shoulder of the contractor and he would be liable to get the damage repaired
out of his expenses (Cartwright, 2016). Also, applicability of consumer law can be seen in the above
scenario. As the party is not happy with the services provided to him by the contractor they can file a suit
against the contractor because he is not following all of the terms and conditions which are agreed upon

by him in the contract. In the above case it was clearly stated in the contract that the construction should
be done as watertight construction, because of the wrongful construction done the case will also come
under negligence (Haigh, 2015).
ANALYSIS:
In the above mentioned scenario the contractor will be held liable for breach of contract because there
was a condition mentioned in the contract that if any damages would be there on the floor then the
contractor would be liable for the repairs. But in the case it is clearly written that contractor has refused
to accept the responsibility for such damage. In the above scenario substantial damages would be
awarded to the party because the other party has breached the contract therefore there would be
monetary compensation to the party who suffered loss. In a case Cutter v Powell [1795], in this case
there was a contract which stated that payment would be made after the work would be done perfectly.
The payment was not made by the party as the work was not completed and court also held the same
thing because it was mentioned in the contract that once the work is complete then only the payment
would be made to the party. Another case was there, Ritchie v Atkinson (1808), in this case there was a
contract between the parties where the agreement was done to carry a cargo with the price of £5 per ton
and 1 ton would include 5 shillings of iron. The claimant only carried few tons of material and the other
party stated that the work was not performed fully so there would be no payment made. In this case
court held that the agreement was done into parts and payment was agreed to be done over per ton. So
the claimant would get the amount of money for the weight which he carried.
The above mentioned cases talks about the conditions which are to be followed according to the terms
and condition of the contract. There would be applicability of consumer law in the above mentioned
case because the contractor cheated the party and did not perform his duty well (Hervey and McHale,
2015).
CONCLUSION:
The above case will held contractor as liable because it was a clear breach of contract done on the part of
contractor. The court can ask the contractor to pay for the damages which has occurred to the property
of the claimant because of the act done by the contractor. The contractor can also be held liable for

negligence as he neglected the instruction which was given to him before the construction. The
contractor would have to repair the damage which is been caused to the property of the claimant.

(b)
An internal wall 20 cm thick has collapsed while being demolished and has caused damage to the
structure. The drawings produced by the employer's structural engineer showed it to be non-load
bearing. The employer claims the contractor should have warned it that the plan was wrong before
carrying out the work.
In the above scenario, the wall which was built in the building by the contractor was collapsed by the
claimant but it also caused damage to the building. The drawing which was made by the engineer
showed that the wall is non-load bearing and no load of the building is held on it and even if it is
damaged or collapsed it would not affect the structure of the building in any manner. Having a trust over
the contractor and the engineer, claimant demolished the wall and had to suffer a loss due to that.
ISSUE:
Whether the contractor would be liable for the wrongful information provided by the engineer
LAW:
The law which would be applicable in the above scenario would be consumer law and common law
(Howells and Wilhelmsson, 2017). As according to the common law the work which is being appointed to
a specialist need not to be verified as it requires special skills and for that a specialist is already being hired.
In the above scenario the map was not correctly made by the engineer and the contractor was the one who
delegated the work to him (Llewellyn, 2016). In this case the responsibility of the error will be on the
shoulders of both the engineer as well as the contractor who assigned him the work. The severity of the
punishment depends upon the further readings in the case.
APPLICABILITY:
In the above scenario it can be seen that the contractor has appointed the engineer for the designing of the
map. So, the responsibility of the map was in the hand of specialist and the contractor need not to worry
about the same. This principle was setup in the case of Moresk Cleaners Ltd v. Thomas Henwood Hicks
(1996), in this case the plaintiff was the laundry man and he appointed the defender as the architect and
assigned the design work of his new store. After the designer has received the work he delegated his duties

to a contractor and asked him to design the structure for him. Then the employer filed a suit against this act
of the architect in the court as the design which was made was a defective design. The court held that in no
condition an architect can delegate his duties which were assigned to him to anybody else. In another case J
Sainsbury plc v. Broadway Malyan (1998) court settled down a claim which was filed for defective design.
The issue in the case was linked to the design of the wall which was built between store area and the retail
area. The protection from the fire was not that much between the walls this was realized when fire occurred
and it caused damages to the goods (Wilson, et. al., 2014). During the hearing in the court the architect who
designed the map tried to blame the engineer because the design was sent to the engineer for approval. In
this case the court held that if the architect wanted to know about the fire safety in the design then it should
be prior mentioned to the engineer so that the work can be done accordingly by the engineer. In another
case, George Fischer (GB) Ltd v. Multi Design Consultants Roofdec Ltd., Severfield Reece and Davis
Langdon and Everest (1998), here the representative appointed by the employer was held partly held liable
because of the error in the design. The judgment was passed in the favor of the employer and the parties
agreed to pay the damages. Multi Design Consultants who were appointed for design work were liable to
pay £940,000 and the employer i.e. Davis Langdon and Everest were liable to pay £807,388 (Knapp, et. al.,
2000).
CONCLUSION:
In the above case the liability would be on the shoulders of both the contractor as well as the engineer who
built the wall. The approval done by engineer would not release the liability of the contractor. The party who
suffered the loss due to the activities of contractor as well as the engineer, the one who created the map and
the one who approved the map suit can be filed against both of them to claim the damages and the remedies.
The amount of damages would be shared between both of them and the percentage of share would depend
upon the intensity of wrong done by each party (McKendrick, 2014).

(c)
In another part of the building, the foundations for newly built floors have started to crack. An investigation
proves that the foundations have been built of steel slag, a material that expands when it is confined. The
Specification required 'granular hardcore which shall be well graded or uncrushed gravel, stone, rock fill,
crushed concrete or slag or natural sand or a combination of any of these.' The employer's architect
provided the Specification.
In the above scenario, the material used for flooring was steel slag which expands when it is confined. The
demand for the material of flooring was granular and it should be well graded. The material which can also
be used is uncrushed gravel, stone, rock fill or any of the above mentioned combination. These were
recommended by the employer’s architect.
ISSUE:
Whether the contractor be held liable for the use of wrong material
LAW:
In the above mentioned scenario the contractor would be held liable under the negligence. As it was already
mention that what should be the flooring material used then also the different material was used by the
contractor. This led to a problem in the future and damaged the floor. The contractor will also be held liable
under the torts law. In such cases the contractor would be held liable for not following the command given
at the starting of the construction and the loss which is occurred will also be bared by the contractor
(Milsom, 2014).
APPLICABILITY:
In the above scenario the mistake is done on the part of the contractor so the court would held the full
liability over the contractor as the material should be used which was specified by the party so that he could
not have face a loss of crack floor. This would damage the whole building and the loss would have to be
bared by the contractor as he was the main person to select and check the material which was being used in
the construction. In a case Equitable Debenture Assets Corporation Ltd v. William Moss and Others
(1984), the involvement of wall leakage was there out of the curtain wall in the building. This was due to the

defective design and material which was used by the contractor whereas the prescribed material for usage
was different (Partington, 2016). In this case the owner of the building filed a suit against the contractor as
well as the architect. It was held that the responsibility of the loss would lie on the shoulder of the contractor
as the material which was used for of cheap quality also it was not which was demanded by the owner of
the building. In another case, Edward Lindenberg v. Joe Canning , Jerome Contracting Ltd (1992) the
contractor was held liable by the court because of use of cheap material in the building which caused the
building to damage and loss to the owner of the building (Poole, 2016).
CONCLUSION:
In the above mentioned case the ruling would be against the contractor by referring the mentioned cases
also. The contractor would be held liable under tort as well as negligence. The usage of material to build the
floor was not appropriate which caused loss to the owner. The cost of repair would be bared by the
contractor and he would also be liable to pay the amount for the damages to the owner because of his
nonprofessional behavior (Ware, 2015).

Conclusion
It is concluded from the above report that the construction laws play an integral role in the
organisational environment and working. The effectiveness attained in terms of the construction
laws helps in the business to develop its specifications and the working. The laws and the
functions provide an idea regarding the solution of the several business problems. The principles
related to the common law are analysed effectively which proves to be helpful for the operations
of the business problems and their solutions. The laws related to the breach and their associated
remedies also provide an idea regarding the contract used in the construction industries. The
analysis of the cases and their related examples develop a good understanding regarding the law
application and their legality. These laws also help in the development of an effective framework
that is used widely in the business.

References
 Andrews, N., 2015. Contract law. Cambridge University Press.
 Cartwright, J., 2016. Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the
civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing.
 Haigh, R., 2015. Legal English. Routledge.
 Hervey, T.K. and McHale, J.V., 2015. European Union health law. Cambridge university
press.
 Howells, G.G. and Wilhelmsson, T., 2017. EC consumer law. Taylor & Francis.
 Knapp, C.L., Crystal, N.M. and Prince, H.G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
 Llewellyn, K.N., 2016. The common law tradition: Deciding appeals (Vol. 16). Quid Pro
Books.
 McKendrick, E., 2014. Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press
(UK).
 Milsom, S.F.C., 2014. Historical foundations of the common law. Butterworth-
Heinemann.
 Partington, M., 2016. Introduction to the English legal system 2016-2017. Oxford
University Press.
 Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
 Ware, S., 2015. Consumer Law Professor Stephen Ware Spring 2015.
 Wilson, S., Rutherford, H., Storey, T. and Wortley, N., 2014. English Legal System.
Oxford University Press.