1st July 2008, 04:37 PM
Went to the library to get a copy of the wonderful contract but temporarily on hold and will have to pay ?2.5, ?5 with the guide, because they have not got it anywhere on their system but will try interlibra. I rang up publishers to ask about copyright angle. You can refer to it by clause but no photocopy. They mentioned some agreement form in the back, which they weren?t sure if it could be copied, or not.
M!
From my slim learning I have found the word Landowner and Developer for the Employer in the contract. From the Telford publishing site (I cant see why they would miss-represent the contracts content)
It seems to me (apart from the etc bit) that the suggested model is that the consultant occupies the position of the engineer between the landowner and the archaeological contractor. I don?t think that the word Employer should be confused with the engineer which it could appear that 1mans is doing with the suggestion that design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor could be seen as the equivalent of an engineer.
I would like to see the consultant work for the landowner or that if the employer was called a developer, that the developer at the time was also the owner of the land. I think that to work for any other party could involve a conflict of interest over the archaeology with the contract that that party held with its employer. As I have said elsewhere, notably pipelines where the developer has powers of compulsory purchase enforceable through the DTI and where most often those powers are not taken up so the ownership is never even temporarily with the developer. I think that there is a conflict with IFA Code 25 -An archaeologist embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping. I think that the code says Secure Permission, it says the Archaeologist will Secure the Permission.
On my small and pathetic jobs I quite often get architects or builders ringing me up and trying to sub contract me through them. I point out that the condition is with the landowner and that I want to invoice the owners direct as it clarifies the ownership of the archaeology.
I had a question recently from a husband and wife about who would get all the loot when it was only the husbands name that was on the planning application. It then turned out that the farm was held in a trust with a sister for a great aunt. This job had come my way through an architect asking for quotes. In terms of contract law I could very easily contracted through with the architect but I don?t think that you should.
I have had another job recently where a builder rang me up and said that I was to be on site the next day. I told him that I was surprised as I had had no such previous appointment and that I was unaware that a wsi had been approved. Turned out that the actually? I cant tell you the rest because its against Code 25
M!
Quote:quote:Whether or not the contract is let using the ICE Conditions of Contract, if there is a Consultant involved they are always appointed by the Employer. The Employer might be a range of different people - the developer themselves, or their design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor.
From my slim learning I have found the word Landowner and Developer for the Employer in the contract. From the Telford publishing site (I cant see why they would miss-represent the contracts content)
Quote:quote: The Contract retains a pattern traditional in civil engineering contracts, with an investigation commissioned by an Employer (Landowners, developers etc.), designed or approved by an Engineer and carried out by a specialist Archaeological Contractor, only that the term 'Consultant' is used instead of 'Engineer'.
It seems to me (apart from the etc bit) that the suggested model is that the consultant occupies the position of the engineer between the landowner and the archaeological contractor. I don?t think that the word Employer should be confused with the engineer which it could appear that 1mans is doing with the suggestion that design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor could be seen as the equivalent of an engineer.
I would like to see the consultant work for the landowner or that if the employer was called a developer, that the developer at the time was also the owner of the land. I think that to work for any other party could involve a conflict of interest over the archaeology with the contract that that party held with its employer. As I have said elsewhere, notably pipelines where the developer has powers of compulsory purchase enforceable through the DTI and where most often those powers are not taken up so the ownership is never even temporarily with the developer. I think that there is a conflict with IFA Code 25 -An archaeologist embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping. I think that the code says Secure Permission, it says the Archaeologist will Secure the Permission.
On my small and pathetic jobs I quite often get architects or builders ringing me up and trying to sub contract me through them. I point out that the condition is with the landowner and that I want to invoice the owners direct as it clarifies the ownership of the archaeology.
I had a question recently from a husband and wife about who would get all the loot when it was only the husbands name that was on the planning application. It then turned out that the farm was held in a trust with a sister for a great aunt. This job had come my way through an architect asking for quotes. In terms of contract law I could very easily contracted through with the architect but I don?t think that you should.
I have had another job recently where a builder rang me up and said that I was to be on site the next day. I told him that I was surprised as I had had no such previous appointment and that I was unaware that a wsi had been approved. Turned out that the actually? I cant tell you the rest because its against Code 25