Project Management

Negotiating With a Client’s Representative Requires Different Tactics

By Michael Strogoff, AIA

Effective negotiating requires that parties understand each other’s goals, aspirations and underlying concerns. Some of these can be ascertained indirectly: clients can gain a preliminary understanding of what’s important to design professionals through reading their statements of qualifications and other marketing collateral; design professionals can gain insight into a client’s perspective through reading their request for qualifications, talking to design professionals that previously worked with the client, or through third parties that know the client. No matter how much prior research is done, however, it is only when parties meet in person to negotiate that they can fully understand what drives each other. To design professionals, this means negotiating with a client’s key decision-maker. …

Negotiating With a Client’s Representative Requires Different TacticsRead More »

Construction Law, Contract Administration

Consultancy agreements and allegations of illegality

by Matthias Scherer

Contractors and suppliers operating abroad often conclude contracts with agents, consultants and other intermediaries who assist them in tender processes as well as in negotiating and performing contracts. Typically, these consultancy agreements provide that disputes are to be submitted to arbitration. Most disputes concern the consultants’ entitlement to a fee. In these disputes, the principal often argues that the contract was illegal under the applicable law. This notably occurred in two cases which led to two recent decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on applications to set aside or revise arbitral awards.

In the first case, a Swiss and a Taiwanese party had entered into a consultancy agreement in respect of a contract which the Swiss party wished to obtain for managing and maintaining an electricity plant in Taiwan. On the basis of the agreement, the Taiwanese consultant later initiated arbitration under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration to obtain payment of his fees. The arbitral tribunal found in a partial award that the consultancy agreement was valid.

The Swiss principal applied to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court for revision of the partial award, the time limit for the setting aside of the award, which would have been the ordinary remedy in such a case, having already expired. The principal contended before the Supreme Court that the agreement had an illegal content as it contemplated bribery, and produced new evidence to support its claim. The Court denied the request, as the prerequisites under Swiss law for a review of the award were not met. Indeed, according to the Court, the evidence could have been produced in the arbitration and was therefore not new. The arbitration resumed and the arbitrators eventually rendered a final award in favour of the consultant.

The principal sought to have the final award set aside on the grounds that it breached public policy, relying on the same evidence on which it had previously sought to rely in its request for review of the partial award. The principal further argued that the Supreme Court must examine the alleged nullity of a contract on its own motion. The Court however dismissed the application. It found that the principal could and should have produced the evidence purportedly showing bribery during the arbitration. The Court also ruled that it would not review on its own motion the validity of private law contracts.

The principal again raised its public policy defence in the subsequent enforcement proceedings in Switzerland. The competent cantonal court however ruled that arguments which could have been raised in setting aside proceedings could no longer be raised at the enforcement stage.

In another dispute between a consultant and a principal, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court admitted the principal’s request to set aside an arbitral award due to procedural fraud. In the highly publicized Thales v Frontier AG matter, the award was annulled and the matter remanded to the arbitrators. The facts of the case are summarised below.

In 1989, France authorised the export of new F-3000 frigates to Taiwan. Mainland China objected to the export and a few months later, upon request of a French minister, France withdrew the export authorisation. In 1990, Thomson CSF (which later became Thales), the manufacturer of the frigates, entered into an agreement with Frontier, a Swiss company, to act as its agent. According to the agreement, Frontier was to receive remuneration amounting to 1% of the value of Thomson CSF’s contract with Taiwan for its assistance in relation to the sale of the warships. Behind Frontier was Alfred Sirven, a high ranking manager with the French oil company Elf Aquitaine. Subsequently, in 1991, the French government reversed its previous position and gave its final approval for the sale of the ships. The contract between Thomson and Taiwan was concluded on 31 August 1991 for a purchase price of approximately USD 2.5 billion.

Thomson however refused to pay Frontier, which initiated ICC arbitration as a result. In the arbitration, Thomson contended that the objective of the contract was in fact for Frontier to solicit the services of Edmond Kwan, a consultant of Elf Aquitaine in China, in order that he use his political connections to persuade the Chinese to cease their opposition to the sale of the warships to Taiwan. Thomson argued that the contract was void as its object was influence peddling. Messrs Sirven and Kwan, as well as other witnesses, were heard by the arbitral tribunal.

In 1996, the tribunal rendered its award, ordering Thomson to pay the contractual fee to Frontier. The tribunal found that Frontier had provided the services which were due under the contract by assisting Thomson, through Edmond Kwan, to appease Chinese opposition to the sale. The tribunal admitted that influence peddling was unlawful but found that it had not been proven that influence peddling had occurred. Thomson subsequently initiated criminal proceedings in France against Mr. Kwan and others for giving false testimony before the arbitral tribunal. On 1 October 2008, the French authorities ceased their investigation as a result of Mr. Sirven’s death and because there was insufficient evidence against the other actors. The French authorities however concluded that Sirven had indeed given false testimony during the arbitration.

On 17 December 2008, Thales (formerly Thomson) brought a request for review of the 1996 arbitral award before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court on the basis of the findings of the French authorities. The French investigation had shown that the real objective of the contract between Thomson and Frontier was not to lobby for the sale of the warships in China, but rather to persuade a French minister, who wanted to avoid retaliation measures by Mainland China, to reconsider his objections to the sale. Commissions had therefore been paid by Frontier to Mr. Sirven and a woman who had privileged relations with the minister. Mr. Sirven had represented to the arbitral tribunal that Mr. Kwan had been the only beneficiary of a commission, however it was uncovered that he had implicated Mr. Kwan merely for the purposes of the arbitration. The Swiss Supreme Court ruled that it had been established that Mr. Sirven had orchestrated an influence peddling scheme to the detriment of the French authorities. He had misled the arbitral tribunal and was therefore guilty of procedural fraud. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sirven’s untruthful testimony had had a direct influence on the tribunal’s award. Consequently, the Supreme Court annulled the award and remanded the matter to the original arbitral tribunal or a new tribunal to be constituted in accordance with the ICC Rules.

Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn from these two cases. The first is that arbitral tribunals and the Swiss Supreme Court will not uphold contracts that are flawed by illegality. However, it is for the party which alleges an illegality to prove it. Another conclusion to be drawn is that if evidence of illegality exists at the time of the arbitration, it must imperatively be produced in the arbitral proceedings. A party therefore cannot hold back evidence, even if it is self-incriminating, and rely on it in subsequent annulment or enforcement proceedings in the event of an unfavourable outcome of the arbitral proceedings. On the other hand, if a party misleads the arbitral tribunal, as could be uncovered in subsequent criminal proceedings, an arbitral award may not stand.

By Matthias Scherer and Sam Moss

 

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Contract Administration

Seven strategies to beat the recession

One may curse, whine, pray or plead but there still seems to be no escape from the after effects of the financial downturn. But before this recession monster starts gulping down our hard-earned savings, let’s attack it using some time-tested strategies and tools. The following habits combined with your indomitable spirit will ensure that you are left with plenty of cash to meet your needs and more: …

Seven strategies to beat the recessionRead More »

Contract Administration

Majority of new buildings do not follow building code – JEA

AMMAN – The vast majority of new buildings constructed in the Kingdom, excluding the capital, do not comply with the National Building Code (NBC), according to the Jordan Engineers Association (JEA).
Stressing that failure to follow regulations puts the safety of buildings at risk in the event of major earthquakes, Mahmoud Subhi, head of the JEA’s technical affairs and engineering supervision committee, told The Jordan Times in a recent interview that citizens are obligated to comply with the NBC. …

Majority of new buildings do not follow building code – JEARead More »

Contract Administration

Negotiate, not bully

by Conrad Egbert

Last week, following extensive chats with developers, contractors and suppliers, it was clear that most of the industry is renegotiating contracts to better suit the current market conditions. Now, even though this may seem like the best option (and it probably is) to kick-start the construction industry, a couple of things that Besix’s Philippe Dessoy and Arabtec’s Tom Barry pointed out, painted a different picture. …

Negotiate, not bullyRead More »

Contract Administration

The emergence of Asian construction contractors in the Middle East

by Mark Raymont
In recent years, the Middle East has proved to be one of the most attractive construction and engineering markets in the world for international contractors. Notwithstanding the present global economic climate, parts of the Middle East continue to present significant opportunities and many global construction contractors are active in the region. Among the most prominent are construction contractors who are head-quartered in the Asia Pacific area, as is illustrated by some of the more high-profile projects in the Middle East, where construction contractor consortia have include many of the major Japanese and South Korean construction firms. …

The emergence of Asian construction contractors in the Middle EastRead More »

Contract Administration

Contractors are left guessing in the Gulf

The Gulf’s construction clients are struggling to make up their minds. Governments may be busy issuing tenders for new projects, but few awards are following once bids come in. For contractors, this presents serious problems, as they do not know if or when they will get any new work.

In Abu Dhabi, for instance, the first tenders have been issued for the MGM development at Mina Zayed, and contractors have been told to submit bids in May for a new 60,000-seat stadium in the Capital City area. But at the same time, the tender for Tawam hospital has been cancelled and contractors and consultants have been waiting for months for awards on a sewage tunnel programme and a metro system. …

Contractors are left guessing in the GulfRead More »

Contract Administration

New decade, new development of the remoteness rule

by Sarah Thomas

In this, the second of my New Year updates, I would like to discuss two interesting cases which have recently been decided by the UK courts. The first is the UK Court of Appeal upholding of a first instance judgment and the comments that the Court made on the recoverability of damages under English contract law.

The case is Supershield Limited v Siemens Building Technologies FE Ltd. As a reminder, the basic test under English law is that a party will recover losses flowing from the breach that (i) arise naturally, in the usual course of things, or (ii) are losses which the parties may reasonably be taken to have contemplated when entering into the contract (the “Hadley v. Baxendale” test, often known as the “remoteness” test). A previous recent development of this area resulted from the House of Lord’s decision in the Achilleas case which suggests that a defendant will not be liable for losses – even those which are not unusual and therefore potentially not too “remote” – which he cannot reasonably be regarded as having assumed responsibility for.

The facts of the Supershield case (whether Siemens could recover from its defaulting subcontractor the losses flowing from a series of failures in a water sprinkler system and in particular, the amount that Siemens had settled for a claim upstream with the main contractor) are not so important as what the Court said about the current interpretation of this remoteness rule. It held that Hadley v. Baxendale remains the standard rule and reflects “the expectation or intention reasonably to be imputed to the parties”. The Court went on to say that this can be interpreted so that “…if on the proper analysis of the Contract against its commercial background, the loss was within the scope of duty (i.e. what was within the contract breaker’s duty to prevent under the Contract) it cannot be regarded as too remote, even if it would not have occurred in ordinary circumstances”.

This means that under English law, a contract breaker can still be liable for damages even if those damages would have been considered unlikely by the parties when entering into the contract. Thus this judgment is important for its distinction between what “intention can be imputed between the parties” as to what damages should be covered and likelihood/foreseeability.

Another case, from a Scottish court, provides an interesting example of notice bars in a construction contract being strictly enforced in the UK. The case in question, Education 4 Ayrshire v South Ayrshire Council involved a contractor who had contracted to design and build six schools for the South Ayrshire Council under a PPP contract. During the works, asbestos that had not been revealed by a previous survey was discovered. This qualified as a “Works Compensation Event” under the contract, for which the Contractor might be entitled to an extension of time, payment of compensation and/or relief from its obligations but provided that the proper procedure was followed.
The Authority rejected the contractor’s claim for an extension of time and compensation on the basis that the contractor had failed to give the required notice in accordance with Clause 17 of the contract.
The judge agreed that the Contractor had not in fact complied with clause 17. He explained that once it is accepted that compliance with the notice clause is a condition precedent (and both parties agreed that it was), the question is simply, “what does the clause require?” In this case the clause required the Contractor to give notice of its claim. What the Contractor’s letter to the Authority about the delay actually said was “We will submit our full claim in accordance with clause 17.6 (…)”. This was held not to be valid notice under clause 17.6. A number of readers, particularly those from non-common law jurisdictions, will be surprised by this, as the Contractor had indeed flagged to the employer that a claim was being sought. But it just goes to show how strictly these notice provisions may be interpreted under English law and the need to follow ‘the letter of the contract’. You may recall that I answered a query on notices from a project manager recently (see Ask the Expert, February 2010) and warned of the need to check that the notice strictly complied with all formalities.
“But how is this equitable?” a number of you will cry. In the case, the judge said that the whole purpose of the clause is to give certainty – the Authority should not have to infer or assume from correspondence that a claim will be made. In this case, in accordance with the contractual notice provisions, the chief executive of the Authority was entitled to formal notification of a claim. The fact that those “on the ground” at the Authority may have been aware of the situation (the Authority was sent a copy of the survey report, attended a meeting to discuss its implications and had been provided with a copy of the Sub-Contractor’s claim against the Contractor in relation to the same event) was irrelevant.

Food for thought….

Please let me know if any of you have come across similar situations.

Leave a comment on New decade, new development of the remoteness rule

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law

U.S. Crackdown is Raising the Price of Corruption

by Andrew Ness

The principal weapon of the U.S. government to combat corruption in international business dealings is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). To say that the U.S. is now aggressively pursuing FCPA cases is an understatement. In the past year, we have seen billions of dollars of fines, sting operations, and the pursuit of individuals around the world. Here are some of the latest FCPA headlines:

 Hefty penalties are the order of the day – In the past year, companies have settled with regulators to the tune of billions of dollars in penalties, fines and disgorgement.

• Halliburton/KBR paid $600 million;

• Siemens paid $1.6 billion;

• BAE paid $450 million; and

• It is reported that Daimler will pay an estimated $200 million.

Not factored in here is the cost of these investigations. Technip recently reported a charge of approximately $500 million related to government investigations into its involvement in the TSKJ joint venture in Nigeria (the Halliburton/KBR settlement). By contrast, investment in a comprehensive compliance program and FCPA due diligence on agents and consultants looks like an inexpensive way to protect a healthy bottom line.

 Sting operations – In a very aggressive move, the US Dept. of Justice’s sting operation in conjunction with the UK authorities caught everyone by surprise. In tactics often reserved for crime syndicates, the DOJ and UK police arrested 22 individuals who allegedly attempted to make improper payments to FBI agents posing as representatives of procurement officers for a top minister of an African country. The improper payments were intended to obtain the award of contracts to sell military and law enforcement supplies. In an unusual twist, no actual foreign officials were involved.

 Intergovernmental cooperation – On February 5, 2010, BAE settled with both the DOJ and the UK’s Serious Fraud Office. In addition to pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to making false statements to the U.S. government, BAE also pled guilty to a charge that it failed “to keep reasonably accurate accounting records in relation to its activities in Tanzania.” BAE’s settlement included a payment of $400 million to the US and £30 million to the Crown Court (with a designated use to benefit the people of Tanzania). The Siemens settlement of $1.6 billion included a payment of approximately $560 million to the Munich Public Prosecutors Office for corporate failure to supervise officers and employees.

The February 11, 2009 Halliburton/KBR settlement only resolved issues with U.S. regulators, and investigations by French, British and Nigerian authorities remain unresolved. Additionally, as mentioned above, the FBI and City of London Police coordinated efforts in the January 19, 2010 sting operation that captured 22 individuals.

According to public reports, the US SEC made over 750 requests for assistance from foreign regulators in fiscal 2009, an increase of almost 200 requests from the prior year. Geographic and economic boundaries have all but dissolved, making it more difficult to hide corrupt payments in offshore entities and far flung subsidiaries.

 Individual prosecutions and more litigation – The U.S. government has also sent a clear signal that it is willing to go after individuals and to litigate when necessary. Regulators are pursuing the middlemen and agents (as in the Siemens and Halliburton investigations) who conceal the corrupt payments to government officials. 2009 alone saw three FCPA trials against four individuals. That equals the total number of trials in the prior seven years.

 Increased scrutiny on agents and consultants – Companies subject to the FCPA need to exercise due diligence to ensure that they form business relationships with responsible and qualified agents and consultants. The DOJ has provided companies with a list of “red flags” which, if present, should trigger heightened scrutiny. Red flags include unusual payment patterns, high commissions, a refusal by the agent or consultant to provide FCPA certifications, a lack of qualifications or expertise to perform the services being offered, and a referral to the agent or consultant by an official of a potential governmental customer. As highlighted in the Siemens, Halliburton and BAE settlements, failure to conduct comprehensive due diligence, or turning a blind-eye to any one of these “red flags” can be highly damaging to a company’s reputation and bottom line.

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law

“Clause pénale” v. liquidated damages – any similarities?

1 Comment

by Joanne Clarke

Delays are of course a common problem in construction projects. French law (like English law) allows for a pre-estimation of damages for delay. However, the common law and the civil law approaches to such pre-estimation appear to differ, as pan-European construction professionals may have encountered.

English lawyers turn towards liquidated damages for delay. These involve the pre-determination, at the time the contract is entered into, of the loss which a delay would cause. However, these ascertained damages must be based on a genuine estimate of the likely loss and not amount to a penalty.

French lawyers rely upon “clauses pénales”, which also involve a pre-determined amount to be paid out in the event of delay but which, as their name suggests, are punitive in nature.

In this post, we consider the distinction between “clauses pénales” and liquidated damages and whether they are reconcilable.

Conceptual distinction

Under English law, for a liquidated damages clause to be enforceable, its purpose must be to compensate the innocent party for breach of the contract, not to deter the other party from breaching it. The amount in question should be a genuine pre-estimate of loss as perceived at the time the contract was entered into. A clause whose purpose is to deter, or which sets an extravagant or unconscionable level of damages in comparison with the greatest loss which could be proved to have followed the occurrence of a particular breach, is likely to be struck out by an English judge on the basis that it amounts to a penalty. In this case, the party attempting to rely upon such provision would have to prove its loss.

The French Civil Code defines a “clause pénale” as “… a clause by which a person, in order to ensure performance of an agreement, binds himself to something in case of non-performance” (Article 1226) and “… a compensation for the damages which the creditor suffers from the non-performance of the principal obligation” (Article 1229). A provision classified as a “clause pénale” explicitly encompasses a combination of both coercive and compensatory elements. Therefore, the mere punitive nature of such a clause will not make it unenforceable.

In France, the philosophical considerations behind the 1804 Civil Code, in particular the belief in freedom of contract, meant that the “clause pénale” remained outside the control of French judges until 1975. By that date, however, tension raised by parties’ differing bargaining powers and contract disequilibrium necessitated a change in the law. Since then, the “clause pénale” has been subject to the possible control of French judges under Article 1152 of the Code. If the amount in a “clause pénale” is “obviously excessive” or “ridiculously low”, the judge may decide to adjust it, in line with certain guidelines. Unlike in England, however, an excessively onerous “clause pénale” will not be struck out.

Notwithstanding their common compensatory and pre-determined nature, liquidated damages and “clauses pénales” thus appear incompatible, since the hybrid character of the latter conflicts with the “no penalty” approach of the former.

Practical implications

Even though English law does not allow a liquidated damages clause if it is in fact a “penalty” clause, in practice there have only been a handful of English cases striking out liquidated damages as penalties. English courts are unwilling to interfere with the parties’ bargain in this respect, especially in a commercial context, when it is clear that the clause was freely negotiated.

Whilst “clauses pénales” are binding and enforceable in France, the risk of abuse is limited by the possible intervention of the judiciary to reduce or increase the amount in question.

Just as in England, a French judge must consider the existence or otherwise of a coercive (deterrent) element by looking at the intention of the parties when the contract was concluded. However, the French judge will do it not to determine whether the clause should be struck out but to establish whether it amounts to a “clause pénale” and, as such, falls under his control. If the clause lacks either the compensatory or the coercive element, the French judge will not have discretion to reduce or increase the amount in question.

Both French and English judges and arbitrators are cautious about interfering with liquidated damages and “clauses pénales” but the guidelines and criteria they have adopted differ in significant ways.

In particular, French judges may take into account the difference between the amount fixed in the clause and the actual loss suffered, a difference which is not directly relevant in England. In fact, English courts have consistently held that the comparison should be between the amount fixed in the provision and the loss as could reasonably be anticipated at the time the contract was entered into.

Conclusion

Although in principle the prohibition of penalty clauses under English law appears irreconcilable with the enforceability of “clause pénales” under French law, judges and arbitrators face similar tensions both in England and France between the risk of abuse and necessary judicial intervention on one hand and freedom of contract and legal certainty on the other.

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Construction Law

New Tort Law Firms up Liability for Tofu Buildings

1 Comment

by Hew Kian Heong

On 26 December 2009, the PRC Tort Liability Law (the “Tort Law”) was promulgated following a seven-year period of discussions and debate. The law will enter into effect on 1 July 2010.

The Tort Law marks a milestone in PRC legislative history, and will have myriad implications for diverse areas of private and commercial activity.

As a construction lawyer, I am particularly interested in Article 86 of the Tort Law concerning liability for loss and damage caused by collapse of construction works.

Although the Tort Law has been in planning for some time, it seems to have been influenced by some very recent events. Much attention has been focused on the recent milk scandals as a catalyst for the product liability aspects of the legislation. But it is also widely speculated that Article 86 was driven by the recent case of a building collapse in Shanghai in June 2009. The collapse of a 13-floor building at Shanghai’s “Lotus Riverside” apartment complex was perhaps one of the top 10 local news events of 2009 in Shanghai. The accident killed one worker on site and left 489 home buyers without their expected homes (in many cases, costing all of their life savings). The collapse has been blamed on improper construction methods.

Quality problems have long plagued the construction industry in China. “Tofu Building” is the cheeky term used by the local press to describe such shoddy construction projects. Clearly, to some extent, this situation reflects a failure of the current legal and regulatory regime. Hence, there is little humor in this situation for Chinese policymakers.

Although there are administrative sanctions and contractual remedies for poor construction quality, tort legislation has been less than robust. Tort protections are especially important in addressing harm to innocent third parties who would not be entitled to compensation as a matter of contract.

No doubt in recognition of this, the Tort Law has clearly placed liability for collapse of construction works on the contractors and developers who are best able to avoid them in the first place.

Since 1987, Article 126 of General Principles of Civil Law (”GPCL”) has provided that:

“If a building or any other installation or an object placed or hung on a structure collapses, detaches or drops down and causes damages to others, its owner or manager shall bear civil liability, unless he can prove himself not a fault.”

GPCL Article 126 creates a rebuttable presumption that the current property owner or manager is liable in these cases. But these are quite disparate cases – there is a potentially immense difference between the types of causation involved in items falling from a building and in a building itself collapsing. In cases where the building itself collapses, the current owners or managers would have very little opportunity to prevent the harm. Hence, there seems to be little reason to hold them primarily liable. On the other hand, the original contractor and developer, the parties best situated to prevent catastrophic building collapse, are not included (even secondarily) as potentially liable persons here.

To remedy this and other issues in relation to personal injury liability under the GPCL, in 2003 the Supreme People’s Court issued an interpretation (”Interpretation”) that, among other things, clarified the application of GPCL Article 126. Specifically, Article 16 of the Interpretation clarified that, if the collapse is caused by design or construction defects, the responsible designer and contractor can also be held directly liable to injured parties.

Article 86 of the Tort Law deals only with collapse, providing:

”Where any building, structure or facility collapses, causing any harm to another person, the construction employer and contractor shall be liable jointly and severally. After making compensation, the construction employer or contractor shall be entitled to be reimbursed by other liable persons if any.

Where the collapse of any building, structure or facility, which causes any harm to another person, is attributed to any other liable person, the other liable person shall assume the tort liability.”

With this new Article 86, we have a new bright-line rule for primary liability in the case of construction collapse. Article 86 rests primary liability for building collapse squarely with the employer and contractor. In place of the previous rebuttable presumption of fault for current owners / managers, there is now strict liability for employers and contractors. We also have a broader and more objective rule of reason in relation to secondary or contributory liability, insofar as any other person contributing to the collapse, whether contemporaneous, upstream or downstream to the original employer/contractor, can also be held liable.

Although the Tort Law has changed the formal statutory liability rules in relation to collapse of construction works in China, in the final analysis, the formal and practical significance of this change may not be very great.

Formally, the Supreme People’s Court has long since clarified that the original employers and contractors could be liable in building collapse. Practically, those parties are the most obvious targets for liability in the event of building collapse, and under current practice the employer and contractor are already joined whenever possible, even without the new rule. But, since most developers in practice usually use special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to carry out their projects, dissolving the SPVs on completion, recourse to the original developing parties may be less available than the Tort Law seems to assume. It therefore appears that the contractors may well end up being the easiest targets at the end of the day.

Hence, while Article 86 represents a rationalization and refinement of the liability rules in this area, it will no doubt take much more than this marginal formal change to begin to reverse the deeply entrenched incentives causing the proliferation of Tofu Buildings in China.

Leave a comment on New Tort Law Firms up Liability for Tofu Buildings

Kluwer Construction Blog

Scroll to Top