Study Bay Coursework Assignment Writing Help<\/p>\n
<\/a>As mentioned in the introduction, disputes associated with completion dates often become complicated due to association with different legal concepts. To fully comprehend the research subject matter, it is important to give a brief overview of such principles, as detailed further below.<\/p>\n Most commonly the Contractor\u2019s obligations in respect of time for completion of the works are expressly <\/a>defined [OV1]<\/a>within the terms of contract, it is yet not uncommon for the extent of such obligations to be described less definitively.<\/p>\n While the time for completion will be expressly defined as a fixed date or a fixed period and can be easily identified, it is also essential to for the contract to provide for the mechanism of establishing completion: e.g. commencement date where completion is determined by a \u2018fixed period\u2019.<\/p>\n Where the time for completion is ill-defined to such extent that the contracting parties\u2019 intentions cannot be established or are non-existent, then the law considers time to be \u2018<\/a>at large\u2019 [OV2]<\/a>and implies a requirement to complete the works within \u2018reasonable time\u2019.<\/p>\n The principle of \u2018reasonable time\u2019 under English Law goes back to 19th<\/sup> century[1]<\/a>, where it was established that for if a delay is not attributed to causes within a party\u2019s control, nor such party acted negligently, it will be considered that obligations are duly fulfilled.<\/p>\n \u2018Reasonableness\u2019 cannot be given a strict definition and is assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration circumstances prevailing during the period of performance[2]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some authors on the subject view that both \u2018ordinary\u2019 (e.g. site access, government permits, resource availability, etc.) and \u2018extraordinary\u2019 circumstances (e.g. strikes, client variations, etc) should be taken into consideration when establishing \u2018reasonable time\u2019[3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Occasionally, some bespoke contracts may contain \u2018time is of the essence\u2019 terms. In contractual context, it has stricter meaning than its everyday application: i.e. \u2018if something isn\u2019t done swiftly, it will be too <\/a>late\u2019[OV4]<\/a>.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Inclusion of such terms in a contract significantly elevates the rights and obligations to the contract, whereby failure to meet the completion date will be treated as a fundamental breach of the contract[5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the contract may be found repudiated, the existence of a \u2018time is of the essence\u2019 provision alone may not be sufficient and qualifying rules should be applied in such circumstances[6]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Another area of significant importance in establishing whether completion date has been adhered to, is the meaning of \u2018completion\u2019 itself.<\/p>\n Ordinary meaning of \u2018<\/a>completion[OV5]<\/a>\u2018 requires fulfilment of all<\/u> obligations, which when applied in the context of \u2018<\/a>entire contracts\u2019[OV6]<\/a>, may result in harsh consequences. It is extremely rare for construction contracts to be considered in the same manner and courts will generally take a practical view as to what constitutes \u2018completion\u2019 within construction industry[7]<\/a>.<\/p>\n To reflect that position, standard construction contracts have developed various definitions for use in the industry, such as: <\/a>\u2018practical\u2019[8]<\/a> or \u2018substantial\u2019[9]<\/a> [OV7]<\/a>completion, which irrespective of the words used to describe it, are intended to reflect the court\u2019s position as summarised by <\/a>Judge Newey QC[OV8]<\/a>:[10]<\/a><\/p>\n \u2018In my opinion there is no room for \u2018completion\u2019 as distinct to \u2018practical completion\u2019. Because a building can seldom if ever be built precisely as required by drawings and specification, the contract realistically refers to \u2018practical completion\u2019 and not \u2018completion\u2019 but they mean the same.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n Eminent legal writers on this subject[11]<\/a> concur with this view:<\/p>\n \u2018Usually it will mean bona fide completion free of known or patent defects so as to enable the owner to enter into occupation. The words \u2018practical\u2019 or \u2018substantial\u2019 in the English standard forms do no more than indicate that trivial defects not affecting beneficial occupancy will not prevent completion (the more so, of course, if the contract provides for a maintenance or defects liability period)\u2019 <\/em>[12]<\/a><\/p>\n Irrespective of exact term used, \u2018completion\u2019 can be summarised as a significant gateway, which signifies:<\/p>\n Understanding of the above has a clear importance in resolving any disputes arising out of delay, extension of time and other \u2018time\u2019 related matters.<\/p>\n In addition to an obligation to complete the works by a specific date or within a specific time period, most contracts make specific provision for the contractor to proceed with the work and make progress with \u2018due diligence\u2019. Understanding of this term may, in first instance, appear to have only a remote connection to the subject matter. However, as shown in the next chapters, it is of significant importance when it comes to establishing the contractor\u2019s responsibility when the time of completion is set \u2018at large\u2019.<\/p>\n The courts have held that the assessment of what constitutes \u2018diligence\u2019 must be based on the surrounding circumstances of each case. For example, per Lord Justice Parker[13]<\/a> \u2018what is due diligence and expedition depends, of course, on the object which is sought to be achieved\u2019,<\/em> who went on to explain the relation between diligence and specific contract object, time scales, complexities, etc.<\/p>\n Similarly, in the separate Court of Appeal case of West Faulkener Associates v London Borough of Newham <\/em>(1994)[14]<\/a> the court found that literal interpretation, commercial logic and common sense required the contractor to proceed both regularly and diligently.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n In the absence of an explicit \u2018due diligence\u2019 obligation within a contract, some authors consider that common law implies such a term on the grounds of business <\/a>effic[OV9]<\/a>acy[16]<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [1]<\/a> Lord Watson in Hick v Raymond and Reid <\/em>[1893] AC 22<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co. Ltd <\/em>[1984] 1 All ER<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> I.N.nDuncan- Wallace in \u2018Hudson\u2019s Bilding and Engineering\u00c2\u00a0 Contracts\u2019, <\/em>11th<\/sup> Edn., 1995, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, p.119<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> \u2018Oxford Dictionary of English\u2019 2nd<\/sup> edn., 2008, Oxford University Press<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> Carr v J.A. Berriman Pty. Ltd. [1953]<\/em> ALJ 273 High Court of Australia<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> United Scientific Holdings Ltd. v Burnley Council<\/em> [1977] 2 WLR 806<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a> E.g. Emson Eastern Ltd v EME Developments Ltd <\/em>[1991] 55BLR 114<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a> JCT<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a> ICE<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [10]<\/a> Emson Eastern Ltd v EME Developments Ltd <\/em>[1991] 55BLR 114<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [11]<\/a> For example B. Eggleston in \u2018Liquidated Damages and Extensions of Time\u2019<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, 2009,\u00c2\u00a0 Wiley-Blackwell, and I.N. Duncan-Wallace in \u2018Hudson\u2019s Building and Engineering Contracts\u2019<\/em>, 11th<\/sup> edn., 1995, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [12]<\/a> I.N. Duncan-Wallace in \u2018Hudson\u2019s Building and Engineering Contracts\u2019<\/em>, 11th<\/sup> edn., 1995, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. p1109<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [13]<\/a> Greater London Council v The Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co. Ltd <\/em>[1986] 34 BLR 50<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [14]<\/a> West Faulkener Associates v London Borough of Newham <\/em>[1994] 71 BLR 1<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [15]<\/a> B. Eggleston in \u2018Liquidated Damages and Extensions of Time\u2019<\/em>, 3rd<\/sup> edition, 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, p 24<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [16]<\/a> I.N. Duncan-Wallace in \u2018Hudson\u2019s Building and Engineering Contracts\u2019<\/em>, 11th<\/sup> edn., 1995, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd., p1125<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [OV1]<\/a>Insert ref. to one of the standard contracts<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n