Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:39:59
are, I think, three possibilities
the architect’s decision to grant an extension of time was
It was wrong but not negligently so
It was wrong and the architect was negligent.
would only be in case 3 that the employer would have a claim against
the architect and I read HL as thinking that in that situation there
is new loss not arising from the late completion of the building.
open a different can of worms is it completely clear that contribution
and contributory negligence should be treated the same. In England
at least they are governed by different statutes which might be
construed differently and the underlying policies might be different.
Previous Message ~ Index ~ Next