On 26/01/2021 11:18, Nikki Smith wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 10:35:53 UTC, Robin wrote:
On 26/01/2021 09:10, Nikki Smith wrote:
snip


But how many building contracts stipulate that the builder *must* follow the design information? I've never seen it. A client would be mad to agree to that.

A designer works to a "reasonable skill and care" duty - so only liable if he or she drops below that. An architect copying and pasting a bespoke design from a UFH supplier would probably meet that duty of care, assuming the UFH designer was supplied with all necessary info.

Building contracts put a higher duty of care on the builder - a fitness for purpose. Any client who reduces the builder's liability by insisting on "work to these specs" deserves what they get...

Yes - although IIRC traditional JCT contracts used to put liability for
design faults on the designer rather than the builder if they were at
the same level. (And it comes back to me, I think also allowed for a
design and build contract to explicitly put liability for design faults
on the subcontractor - but I could /very/ easily be wrong.)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

With "Traditional" building contracts (e.g. with BoQs etc) there is definitely more cost risk with the client, but this comes with a better control over quality, supposedly. But the performance risk still sits with the contractor due to the difference in duty of care. The contractor can only offload a claim if it can prove a designer was negligent.

In terms of D&B, liability can be a minefield. But even then, a contractor is still signed up to a fitness for purpose while designers have to only use reasonable skill and care.


The good old default in English law: architects, engineers and other
designers can shrug their shoulders if their design isn't buildable.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid