Construction Law - Tiger Tunnel Construction Limited

Running Header: CONSTRUCTION LAW
1
Subject: Property Law
Construction Law
University
By
(Name)
(Date)

Running Header: CONSTRUCTION LAW
2
Table of Contents
Abstract...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction................................................................................................................ 1
Body........................................................................................................................... 1
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 4
Dispute Avoidance...................................................................................................... 5
Employer................................................................................................................. 5
Contract Administrator............................................................................................ 5
Contractor............................................................................................................... 5

Running Header: CONSTRUCTION LAW
3
Abstract
Tiger Tunnel Construction Limited entered into a contract with Northern Powerhouse Rail
Limited in which construction and excavation of reinforced concrete were to be done. The cost
of this hybrid project was calculated based on a report by the surveyor which provided a five-
meter reinforced concrete but after the excavation started this was in excess. The contractor now
needs more time and more money to get the entire project complete while the employer wants
everything to be done according to the signed agreement. Provisions of law give the contractor a
chance to negotiate for a pay rise and an extension of the completion deadline given that they
were not responsible for the delays in the completion of the project.
Introduction
Tiger Tunnel Construction limited was awarded a contract by Northern Powerhouse Rail Limited
for the construction of a ten-meter diameter railway tunnel linking Manchester and Stockport.
The signed tender document for this contract contained an investigation report from which
excavation of reinforced concrete of five meters long was included but during the construction, a
variation of 100 square meters of reinforced concrete was in existence. The contractor, therefore,
requested for an elongation of time to be taken during the construction as a result of the
variation. This elongation will result in losses on the side of the employer. The employer is not
willing to offer an elongation and even spending an extra coin in excavation because the
contractor did not notify the employer immediately they learned about this.
According to the law of contract in the United Kingdom, the tender documents which were
assigned with the report attached become binding to the undersigning parties. The parties are

Running Header: CONSTRUCTION LAW
4
therefore bound by law to remain legally bound by law to accomplish the requirements of law.
At the stage when the contract had been signed it was enforceable and binding but the situation
changed (Martin Grant & Co Ltd v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd, 2018).
Body
a) Whether the Contractor is entitled to be paid additional monies in respect of the
excavation and removal of the reinforced concrete and, if so, what the basis of the
valuation should be.
In such a scenario there are high chances that individuals will be wondering what should happen
because the two parties to a contractual agreement appear to be right. In response to this, the law
comes to play and this situation has to be closely read in line with what the law states. Even
though after a contract has been signed the parties are expected to abide by the provision of the
law but there are instances under which an individual will be exempted from such things and
they have to get things done appropriately (Clause 2.1). The exceptions should be checked and
all factors on the ground are looked at without ignoring any of these factors and all shall be well.
The cost of excavating the reinforced concrete had been included in the valuation that was done
but the issue here is that the expected reinforced concrete is 100 square meters in excess meaning
that more time and money is required to complete the project. A binding document has already
been signed between the contractor and the employer (Clause 2.2). The employer is not willing
to increase the pay and neither are they willing to allow more time for the project to be
completed following the discovery of excess reinforced concrete (Martin Grant & Co Ltd v Sir Lindsay
Parkinson & Co Ltd, 2018).