When should you sound the alarm?
Language: English Series: Construction News ; (7016) 3 May 2007, 22(1)Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Summary: Examines the extent to which contractors and designers are liable for each others deficient work. Notes that a duty to warn may be implied in a contractor's or designer's contract and highlights the case of "University of Glasgow v William Whitfield and another" ([1988] 42 BLR 66) where the architect argued that the contractor had such a duty to warn the employer. The architect's claim was rejected, but the judge stated that a duty may be implied if there is a reliance by the employer on the contractor. Also looks at "Lindenburg v Canning" ([1992] 62 BLR 142) where the court accepted the existence of a duty to warn, and "Hart v Fidler" ([2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC), L136020) where the court found that Fidler owed a duty to warn Hart of the danger posed to the permanent work.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Date due | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L137929 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 137929-1001 |
Examines the extent to which contractors and designers are liable for each others deficient work. Notes that a duty to warn may be implied in a contractor's or designer's contract and highlights the case of "University of Glasgow v William Whitfield and another" ([1988] 42 BLR 66) where the architect argued that the contractor had such a duty to warn the employer. The architect's claim was rejected, but the judge stated that a duty may be implied if there is a reliance by the employer on the contractor. Also looks at "Lindenburg v Canning" ([1992] 62 BLR 142) where the court accepted the existence of a duty to warn, and "Hart v Fidler" ([2006] EWHC 2857 (TCC), L136020) where the court found that Fidler owed a duty to warn Hart of the danger posed to the permanent work.