Although the construction contract is made between the employer and the contractor, subcontractors will usually do most of the work. As Lloyd J said in Birse Construction Ltd v. Eastern Telegraph Co Ltd  EWHC 2512 (2004): on virtually all building contracts of any magnitude, the role of the contractor is to use his management know-how not only to procure the requisite skills but also to know whether and to what extent they are being provided adequately to meet the requirements of the contract. So despite this book being about the contract between employer and the contractor, most if not all of the legal principles apply to the contractor and subcontractor relationship as well. After all, it is still a construction contract. One difference is that as a general rule, the contractor always remains liable for the work carried out by its subcontractors (i.e., liable for the defaults of the subcontractor). For an example of such a contractual provision see Carillion Construction Ltd v. Woods Bagot Europe Ltd & ors  EWHC 905 (TCC). The main contract contained four sections each with its own provision for liquidated damages. The two subcontracts required the payment of loss and/or expense for delay. In the standard forms of contract this has been held to be the same as damages under the first limb of the rule in Hadley v. Baxandale. When additional work was ordered and delay ensued it needed the help of the court to decide what the parties had agreed. The contractor was protecting its own interests. In Linklaters (Chapter 6), the subcontractor paid a heavy price for not protecting its own interest.
Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
- Macmillan Education UK
- Sequence number
- Chapter number