Search results

In general, all differences between the Employer and the Contractor are firstly addressed by the Engineer, usually under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination]; if the Parties have confidence in the Engineer’s capability to act fairly, many differences will be finally settled under the Sub-Clause 3.7 procedure. However, if either of the Parties is dissatisfied with a determination by the Engineer, a Notice of Dissatisfaction (a NOD, see Sub-Clause 1.1.57) can be filed; thereafter, either Party may proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision], see Sub-Clause 3.7.5 [Dissatisfaction with Engineer’s determination]. The dispute resolution procedure under the 2017 edition is outlined in Figure 20B. The first two Sub-Clauses of Clause 21 [Disputes and Arbitration] deal with the formation of the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (Sub-Clause 21.1 [Constitution of the DAAB]), including how to move forward with the DAAB if either of the Parties fail to appoint a member of the DAAB (Sub-Clause 21.2 [Failure to Appoint DAAB Member(s)]). Sub-Clause 21.3 [Avoidance of Disputes] describes the DAAB’s role in avoiding the escalation of any issues or disagreements into Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision] outlines the procedure before the DAAB in respect of the resolution of Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.5 [Amicable Settlement] includes an invitation for the Parties to resolve disagreements about a decision from the DAAB amicably, while Sub-Clause 21.6 [Arbitration] provides the ultimate procedure for resolution of Disputes, arbitration. Sub-Clause 21.7 [Failure to Comply with DAAB’s Decision] entitles either Party to refer the failure of the other Party to comply with a decision from the DAAB. Finally, Sub-Clause 21.8 [No DAAB In Place] outlines the procedure to follow if no DAAB is in place when a Dispute arises (the Dispute may be referred directly to arbitration).

Clause 1 [General Provisions] contains the provisions that in many contracts are bundled together under the ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘other provisions’ heading and includes a list of definitions, some interpretation principles, rules on communication between the Parties, documents forming the Contract, assignment, confidentiality etc. But Clause 1 also contains other provisions, like the Employer's right to use documentation and other deliverables provided by the Contractor (in other contracts usually referred to as a license to use), and a substantive Sub-Clause on limitation of liability.

Clause 3 [The Engineer] contains the speci?c provisions for the Engineer, including the general requirements for the Engineer and their representative(s) and assistants, the replacement of the Engineer, the duties and authority of the Engineer and - importantly - the Engineer's role when managing the project, e.g. through instructions. In the 2017 edition, the Engineer's role as a ?rst venue for resolution of differences or disagreements between the Contractor and the Employer has been vastly expanded and the Sub-Clause covering this issue now runs to more than three pages rather than the two short paragraphs in the 1999 edition.

The construction industry has arrived at a crossroads of rapid technological progress. While it is foreseen that the advent of new construction technologies will disrupt the construction industry’s future, such disruptions often create the ideal environment for innovation. As poor payment practices continue to plague the construction industry, the advent of smart contracts has created an opportunity to rectify the inherent flaws in the mitigation of payment problems in traditional construction contracts. Given the intrinsic resistance of construction firms to such revolutionary changes, this study aims to understand the various factors influencing the adoption of smart contracts in the Singapore construction industry.

A mixed method was adopted involving quantifying respondents’ perceptions of the factors influencing smart contract adoption, and validation from a group of interviewees on the matter. Out of 461 registered quantity surveyor members contacted via the Singapore institute of surveyors and valuers website, 55 respondents took part in the survey. This is followed by semi-structured interviews to validate the survey results.

The findings indicate that construction firms have neither a significant knowledge of nor willingness to adopt smart contracts. A total of 29 institutional factors were also identified that significantly influence the adoption of smart contracts. The quantitative findings were further reinforced by qualitative interviews with five industry experts.

With recognition of and the successful formulation of the significant institutional drivers and barriers, the key findings of this study will be integral in driving the commercial adoption of smart contracts within the construction industry.

The phenomenon of delayed payment to contractors, particularly in the construction industry, is a vital one and has implications for the health of economies of both developing and developed countries. However, the knowledge of this phenomenon seems patchy and scattered. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the knowledge on the subject matter with directions for future research.

A systematic literature review coupled with a scientometric analysis was used to identify the main strands of delayed payment to contractor research as a basis for qualitative analysis and directions for future investigations.

Current trends of delayed payment to contractor research are categorised into five broad themes, namely: causes, effects, mitigation measures, ethical and law and regulatory issues. On the basis of these themes, directions for future research are proffered.

To the best of the authors knowledge, this is the first attempt at providing a comprehensive and an integrated knowledge on delayed payment to contractor research with pointers for further investigation and policy directions.

Appendix B includes general guidelines for the preparation of Special Provisions, notes on drafting style and also an introduction of the FIDIC Golden Principles for drafting Special Provisions. Included is also a ‘Dos and Don'ts’ of drafting FIDIC based contracts. Finally, Appendix B includes suggestions for Special Provisions to consider when preparing a FIDIC Yellow Book based contract.

With the aim of monitoring the existing regulations that are applicable to community of owners facing delinquency, in view of the importance of this issue for the achievement of the Urban Agenda, the present study aims to analyse the most stringent and controversial measures available for the community of owners facing delinquency from a comparative perspective.

The present work addresses the recent legislative amendments that have taken place at national level in this field in several countries and analyses to what extent they have addressed the delinquency problem faced by community of owners.

The current paper shows that, in the end, legal certainty, the prospective legal and economic effects on mortgage lending and constitutional concerns are the underlying reasons behind the reluctance to implement some stringent measures to face delinquency. It also shows that recent amendments concerning alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are a missed opportunity.

Community of owners plays a key role in cities for the achievement of the Urban Agenda, so the periodical contributions from co-owners are paramount to the proper implementation of urban regeneration, energy efficiency and accessibility policies. To this end, the paper analyses existing regulations that are applicable to community of owners facing delinquency, which may increase in the coming years due to the current socioeconomic context.

This paper builds on existing research and goes one step further by addressing the recent legislative amendments that have taken place recently at national level in this field. These measures may serve as an inspiration to other EU legal systems.

This chapter examines how the nature of World War I catalyzed significant changes in the laws of war, the Treaty of Versailles, the failed Leipzig Trials, and the multiple treaties enacted in the 1920s, with particular focus on the Geneva Convention of 1929.

Clause 14 deals with the mechanisms for paying the Contractor. The Contract Price must be distinguished from the Accepted Contract Amount. The Accepted Contract Amount is the amount stated in the Letter of Acceptance. The Contract Price is the Accepted Contract Amount adjusted in accordance with the Contract e.g. through Variations and other changes under Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments] and the various other Clauses entitling the Contractor to adjustments, including Cost or Cost Plus Profit as well as adjustments under any special agreements on payment based on quantities or measurements, e.g. under Sub-Clause 13.7 [Adjustments for Changes in Cost] or the last paragraph of Sub-Clause 14.1 [The Contract Price].

Unlike the 1999 edition, both the Contractor’s and the Employer’s Claims are now managed through the same procedures. Claims for payment or time (EOT or extension of the DNP) are firstly managed by the procedure provided in Sub-Clause 20.2 [Claims For Payment and/or EOT] in respect of Notice requirement, record keeping and the Engineer’s initial response to the Claim. When the Claim is fully detailed, it is then managed by the process provided in Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination]. Claims for something other than payment or time (e.g. if the Engineer has rejected the issue of a certificate and the Contractor does not agree) are referred directly to the Sub-Clause 3.7 procedure. Under Sub-Clause 3.7, the Claim is either agreed by the Contractor and the Employer or determined by the Engineer. Any Party not satisfied with the Engineer’s determination may refer the matter to the DAAB in accordance with Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision]. Again, if a Party is not satisfied with the DAAB’s decision, the matter may be referred to amicable settlement under Sub-Clause 21.5 [Amicable Settlement] or arbitration under Sub-Clause 21.6 [Arbitration] for final settlement. For an overview, see Figure 20A.