Comparison of time adjustment clauses between DZ3910, AS4000 and STCC
This article examines time adjustment clauses, as they relate to time adjustment between standard terms of construction contracts. DZ3910, AS4000 and STCC were compared on the basis of how risks are allocated, how this may impact on the contractor’s pricing, and ease of understanding for each clause. ASTCC was found to be the most easily interpreted contract, followed by AS4000 and then NZS3910. These assessments were based on the following: a) whether each contract contains words with multiple meanings, b) the number of words used per sentence, c) the amount of internal cross-referencing, and d) the clarity of the contract structure. The allowable pre-conditions for the contractor to claim a time adjustment are similar for all three contracts, and none of them expressly state which party is to bare the risk of buildability, or address the risk of a designer’s disclaimer clause. All of the contracts adopt the principle of contra preferentum which means that the employer bares the risk of variance if there are any ambiguities in the design documentation. Due to their similarities of risk allocation, all of the contracts provide the employer with a similar amount of price surety. AS4000 is the only contract to contain a stringent time-bar clause, limiting a contractor’s time adjustment claim. ASTCC requires the contractor to apply ‘immediately’ and DZ3910 provides a time-bar of 20 working days or as soon as practicable. None of the contracts clarify whether their timing requirements take precedence over the prevention principle, or over any other ground for claiming a time adjustment. The effect of DZ3910’s pre-notification clause 5.19.3 is discussed, and an alternative contents structure is recommended for DZ3910, using a project management method.
Construction Contracts: Law and Management
1. UK construction sector context 2. Roles and relationships 3. General contracting 4. Design-build 5. Construction management 6. Collaborative contracting 7. Risk allocation and procurement decisions 8. Contract choice 9. Tendering and contract formation 10. Liability in contract and tort 11. Contractor's obligations 12. Employer's obligations 13. Responsibility for design 14. Time 15. Payment 16. Contractors' delay and disruption costs 17. Insurance and bonds 18. Role of the contract administrator 19. Sub-contracts 20. Financial remedies for breach of contract 21. Defective buildings and subsequent owners 22. Suspension and termination of contracts 23. Non-adversarial dispute resolution 24. Adversarial dispute resolution
Corporations and the Market for Law
The state competition for corporate law has long been studied as a distinct phenomenon. Under the traditional view, corporations are subject to a unique choice-of-law rule, the internal affairs doctrine (IAD). This rule is explained as a historical accident, or by the special logistics of the corporate contract. The resulting market for corporate law appears to have special characteristics, particularly including the dominance by the single state of Delaware. This paper challenges the traditional view. It shows that the corporate law market is best understood as a special application of the general market for law. Any differences are matters of degree rather than kind, and are explained by considerations underlying enforcement of all choice-of-law contracts rather than by factors unique to corporations. It follows that theories of corporate competition that ignore the broader law market context are incomplete, and that the competition for corporate law carries lessons for the law market generally. Moreover, the connection between the corporate and other law markets has implications for the nature of corporate law, the constitutional status of the IAD, the scope of the IAD, and for the relationship between state and federal law.