CONTRACT TORT LAW

Property Practitioners Law

Contract & Tort law

Property Practitioners Law

Referring to the (Dye Works) Regulations, 2009 that has been applied to the contract Roy Rogers plc will have to consider not using the steenless steel in the linings (Dye Works) Regulations, 2009. Contractual obligations will only be owed to the client (subject to any collateral warranties or assignment). In order for an express term of a contract to be established there must be evidence of an oral or written statement or stipulation that in all the circumstances can be taken to have been intended by the parties to have legal effect. In an oral contract this means that there must be clear evidence of words used at the time of contract formation that were intended by the parties to have legal effect as representing the terms of their contract. 

In order for a term to be implied it must satisfy one of the established bases for implication: namely, implication as a matter of law or as a matter of the presumed common intention of the parties imputed in the light of the circumstances. In the latter case it must be necessary either to give business efficacy to the agreement or be so obvious that the parties must have intended it or be a matter of custom - it must also be capable of clear expression . Ordinarily a professional's contractual obligation to his client only extends to agreeing to conduct his services with reasonable skill and care (but note Gloucestershire Health Authority v Torpy (1997) 55 Con LR 124 where it was held that the standard of care to be expected from specialist engineers may be more onerous than general practice engineers). Thus, for example, the implication of a term of fitness for purpose in an architect's retainer is highly unusual if all the architect is supplying is professional advice or designs (Greaves & Co v Baynham Meikle & Partners [1975] 1 WLR 1095 at 1100D-F; George Hawkins v Chrysler UK Ltd 1986 38 BLR 36 per Fox LJ at 49-51, Dillon LJ at 53-54 and Neil LJ at 54-56). The leading authority is George Hawkins v Chrysler (UK) (CA). In that case it was held that in the absence of special circumstances it was not open to the court to extend the normal obligations of a professional beyond the obligation to take reasonable care. In particular it should be noted that the Court of Appeal rejected the attempt to make the engineer liable on the fitness for purpose basis due to a few oblique answers in cross examination and made clear that the significance of the decision in Greaves should be confined to its special facts (which, of course, included a belated attempt by the defendant at trial to resile from a prior admission of the fitness for purpose term contended for by the claimant). (Kelly D. and Holmes A., 2002 Pp. 35)

The key points are that (i) generally an architect/ construction professional is under no higher obligation than a duty ...