8th January 2007, 02:24 PM
Posted by Unit of 1:
The spec should not specify who the contractor is - specs are often prepared by someone else and approved by the curator prior to being used as a tender document. A sensible consultant will informally agree with the curator who is to be on the tender list, but this agreement has no legal force on either party.
It is generally accepted that curators do not have legal powers to make developers choose from an 'approved list' of contractors. If follows that curators cannot be held to be at fault if the contractor chosen by the developer turns out to be incompetent.
The issue is most likely to arise where the curator has carried out monitoring, because they are more likely under those circumstances both to recognise incompetent work and to feel in a strong enough position to take action on it.
The upshot is, that the developer could try the lines of defence that you suggest - but I think they are unlikely to be successful.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote: âa competent and responsible archaeological contractorâIf the Council refused consent or took enforcement action because they thought the work was not done properly, and if the developer chose to contest that action, then it would be down to the parties to fight it out in court as to who was right. However, the legal responsibility for finding a competent contractor rests with the developer.
In the eye of which beholder?
The spec should not specify who the contractor is - specs are often prepared by someone else and approved by the curator prior to being used as a tender document. A sensible consultant will informally agree with the curator who is to be on the tender list, but this agreement has no legal force on either party.
It is generally accepted that curators do not have legal powers to make developers choose from an 'approved list' of contractors. If follows that curators cannot be held to be at fault if the contractor chosen by the developer turns out to be incompetent.
The issue is most likely to arise where the curator has carried out monitoring, because they are more likely under those circumstances both to recognise incompetent work and to feel in a strong enough position to take action on it.
The upshot is, that the developer could try the lines of defence that you suggest - but I think they are unlikely to be successful.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished