CMGUIDE KNOWLEDGE HUB

Your Complete Resource for Construction Law & Contract Management

Contract AdministrationConstruction LawProject ManagementStatutory AdjudicationDispute Boards
Contract Administration

Majority of new buildings do not follow building code – JEA

Leave a Comment

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

Leave a Comment

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

Leave a Comment

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

Leave a Comment

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

Leave a Comment

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

Leave a Comment

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

Construction Law, Contract Administration

The Procurement Process in Canada after the Supreme Court of Canada Tercon Decision*

1 Comment

by Joel Heard

The tendering and procurement process in Canada has traditionally been treated by the courts as a special area of contract law in which fairness and protecting the integrity of the tender process have been guiding principles.  Courts have implied terms into contract “A” bid contracts that have obliged owners to act fairly, and wide discretionary clauses have been interpreted narrowly to ensure the integrity of the tendering process. …

The Procurement Process in Canada after the Supreme Court of Canada Tercon Decision*Read More »

Construction Law, Contract Administration

When a ‘notice’ need not be ‘noticed’

Leave a Comment

by Vincent Connor

Opening the mailbox at my Hong Kong apartment block brings the usual array of bills, more bills, flyers and…what appear to be ‘notices’ (usually from my landlord): but as we know from the world of construction law, often it is argued that what is intended to be a ‘notice’ fails to meet up to the strict requirements of the contract.

Yet, how many reported cases are there where the notice provision is strictly enforced? Most commentators struggle to point to a decision where a contractor was deprived of his ability to claim an extension of time solely on the basis of non-compliance with a notice provision. The point sometimes seems more of academic interest than practical application.

The good news for the academics is that this struggle may now be partially over. In the Scottish case of Education 4 Ayrshire Limited v South Ayrshire Council , a contractor tried to claim an extension of time due to the discovery of asbestos. This was a “neutral event”, outside the control of the parties, but one which entitled the contractor to bring a claim.

The court “was minded to dismiss” a claim by a contractor who got into a bit of a contractual and semantic muddle with its notices. (Instead of being actually dismissed, the case was “put out By Order”, a Scottish procedure whereby the case is “returned” to the parties for further consideration in light of the court’s decision.)

The contractual muddle arose in that the contractor gave notice under clause 17.1 of the relevant contract, when it should perhaps have given notice under clause 17.6.1 as well. In terms of semantics, the contractor said “we will submit our full claim in accordance with clause 17.6 of the project agreement”, instead of saying something along the lines of “we hereby give notice of our claim”.

It was accepted by both parties that compliance with the notice requirements was a condition precedent to the right to bring a claim.

The bad news for contractors is that the Judge held that this condition precedent had not been complied with, despite the clear intention of the contractor’s letter.

Most pieces on notices conclude with the usual sage advice about getting notices right. This piece is no exception. In Education 4 Ayrshire the parties accepted that the employer was fully aware of the position regarding the asbestos. He was sent a survey report and attended a meeting to discuss its implications. The employer was also aware that the sub-contractor had claimed an extension of time against the contractor as a result of the same event. Yet the Judge still held the contractor to a very exacting standard regarding the provision of notices.

This was despite the fact that the basic commercial intention of the notice provisions had been satisfied. The employer suffered no prejudice as result of any muddle which the contractor may have got into, semantic or otherwise. However, that did not change the outcome of the case. Just when we were getting our heads round the application of the UK (Technology & Construction Court’s) 2007 decision in Steria Limited v Sigma Wireless Communications Limited, it seems that we are back in the danger zone if there is not strict compliance with contract terms regarding notices’ provisions.

So, just how bad is the news for contractors? As mentioned above, this case concerned a “neutral event”. Had a court reached the same decision following a delay caused by an employer breach or act of prevention, the news for contractors would be worse. It would certainly be very bad news for contractors if decisions like this were handed down by those courts or tribunals in Hong Kong who deal regularly with construction matters. But surely, that would never happen. Or would it…?
With that thought, just as I’m discarding the detritus from my mailbox into the trashcan, I stop: maybe that carelessly-drafted note from my landlord does deserve greater scrutiny, after all…Or maybe on the strength of Education 4 Ayrshire I am safe to ‘bin’ it, with impunity?!

 

 

Kluwer Construction Blog

Project Management

Check Your Project for These Four Warning Signs

Leave a Comment

Obviously your project is in trouble if you are missing deadlines and consistently exceeding the estimated effort and cost to get work done. However, you may have a project that actually appears to be on schedule, yet you are concerned about potential problems down the road.

There are things that you can look for that will give some sense as to whether there are potential problems lurking. At this point you cant really call them issues or problems, but they can be identified as risks that have the potential to throw your project off in the future. …

Check Your Project for These Four Warning SignsRead More »

Scroll to Top