Q: Elaborate the citation of N. Sathyapalan v. State Of Kerala, (2007) 13 SCC 43 (SC) ?

Ans: 


x

N. Sathyapalan v. State Of Kerala, (2007) 13 SCC 43 (SC):

 If a delay is attributable solely to the employer, and is also significant, then a contractor would be entitled to damages, notwithstanding an exclusionary clause.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Difference between extra work and additional work ?

Ans: Additional work usually comes within the terms of contract and therefore it does not amount to additional payment. It is significant to take into account whether the work done is outside the scope of the construction contract and therefore whether it falls within the ambit of extra work or not. The object and purpose of the construction contract, terms and conditions of the contract and intention of the parties is important to determine whether extra work done by the contractor amounts to an additional payment to the contractor or not. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC) ?

Ans:  Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar, [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC). In Obrascon, it was held that an experienced contractor must make its own assessment of all available data and come to its own conclusions, rather than to ‘slavishly’ accept the information from the employer. Failure to carry out an independent assessment of grounds conditions would disentitle a contractor from claiming damages, and would entitle the employer to terminate the contract for delay on the part of the contractor attributable to ground conditions.
Read more