Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract?

[1man1desk]

Posted by Unit of 1:

quote:Is there any mention of the ownership of the archaeology or third parties?

It is a Conditions of Contract document, not a political manifesto, so all it does is set out standard terms of contract between two partiesm, in the context of current British law.

There are Guidance Notes (as a separate document) that accompany the Conditions of Contract. Amongst other things, the Guidance Notes do explain what archaeology is and why it is important; the circumstances under which archaeological investigations might arise; the roles of the parties to the contract, and other key roles, including the Consultant and the Curator.

Clauses 3.10 and 3.11 of the CoC deal with access to the site and wayleaves etc, and the Guidance Notes expand on this to say that it is reasonable that the Employer should be expected to make the necessary legal arrangements for gaining access to the land where the Employer does not own that land (i.e. the Contractor shouldn't be expected to make those arrangements).

There is a lot more good stuff in the Guidance Notes, but that is about as close as the Contract comes to addressing the issues you raise.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Unitof1]

Are there clauses on copyright or the ownership of artefacts, rights of removal and the disturbance of the site. Are there any confidentiality clauses? Its all political.

[Paul Belford]

As a contractor I would have to echo 1man's view. Both the Conditions and the Guidance are very helpful. Not all jobs need it, but larger and more complex projects are much less of a headache when you have a framework in place that everyone can sign up to.

Not sure where the discussion on land and property is going. One interesting issue in English law is of course minerals - you can possess mineral rights (of the Crown) without owning the land above.

[1man1desk]

Posted by Unit of 1:

quote:Are there clauses on copyright or the ownership of artefacts, rights of removal and the disturbance of the site. Are there any confidentiality clauses? Its all political.

If you are really interested in the contract, then get a copy and read it. You could probably even get it in some libraries.

It is the opposite of political. What it does is set out the terms of a contract, i.e. a legal agreement entered into voluntarily by two parties, to help prevent disputes and to define the obligations and powers of both parties.

No-one is obliged to enter into a contract, and no two parties to an archaeological contract are obliged to use these Conditions. They will only do so if they think it is in their interests to do so. However, once you have signed it, you know that your own obligations and rights are clearly defined and so are the obligations and rights of the other party, and those rights and obligations are legally enforceable through the civil courts, but are unlikely to get there because there is a defined procedure for dealing with disputes.

The advantage of using defined Conditions of Contract is that if you take on a job without them, you are still entering a contract, but your obligations and rights are less clearly defined and (most importantly) your liabilities may be unlimited. You take much less risk if you use defined Conditions, because you can limit your liabilities, disputes are less likely to arise and are easier to resolve, and if there is a dispute you are much less likely to end up in court (either as plaintiff or defendant).

The advantage of using a published, standard set of Conditions is that they are impartial and fair. Some clients will ask you to sign a bespoke set of Conditions prepared by or for them, and these are much more likely to be disadvantageous to the contractor, and in some cases will unfairly transfer financial risk to the contractor.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Unitof1]

Politics is about interactions. The ifa dont exactly go around shouting about The Wonderful Contract, in which I understand the major contribution to human kinds well-being is that it is administered by a designated person named as the CONSULTANT, rather than the Engineer. Perhaps we have discovered why you have such a fondness for it. This web page http://www.museumoflondonarchaeology.org...difyGuest#

reminds us that we live in a world of run away inflation (to pay for consultants no doubt) and we find that our experts on commercial archaeology to the cuddly civil engineers are really part of a government controlled museum-schedule two exempt charity (sorry going off into another dark alley) who love going to parliamentary committees making out that they work in the commercial world

MoLAS is an archaeological contracting unit ? nobody in the unit likes the word ?contracting

(luckily the MPs had John Samuels, a real representative there, so quite quickly ignored the great charity director)

Without getting my library card out it sounds like this contract does not mention copyright, confidentialities, rights to the archaeology or mention who the owners of the archaeology might be. It would appear that any so called archaeologist entering into it can ignore all such luxuries and leave that to the engineers or their gofors in the certain knowledge that both parties will be long gone by the time that any local has twigged that they are getting right royally short changed. Any archaeologist approaching anybodies land with intent should make those owners the employer in the contract rather than with the glorified quantity surveyors that pass for engineers in this country or their lackeys.

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

{snip}
Perhaps we have discovered why you have such a fondness for it. {snip}(to pay for consultants no doubt) {snip}

Hmm, this is starting to sound like an ad hominem attack, and I find that offensive.

quoteluckily the MPs had John Samuels, a real representative there, so quite quickly ignored the great charity director)

Nil nisi bonum, old chap. Again, another ad hominem attack.

quote:Without getting my library card

GET YOUR BLOODY LIBRARY CARD OUT AND READ IT! If you must criticise, do so from a position of knowledge, not a position of ignorance.

I have used this contract before and have mixed feelings about it. It is good because it regulates the transaction between the contractor and the employer in a measurable manner. However, it also seems to result in artificially inflated tender figures, because it seems to make contractors excessively risk averse, which removes a level of flexibility from the contract that can be quite useful to all parties, and panics employers that are not used to the system.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"A great victory for rangers and hamsters everywhere. Right, Boo?" - Minsc

[Unitof1]

How very dare your poor use of he eis atopon apagoge.

A consultant is not a man, a consultant is just another cog in the Principal-Agent problem in which risk and self-interest are at the core and I most certainly praised the dead.

http://www.appag.org.uk/documents/hearings/11_07_02.doc

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

How very dare your poor use of he eis atopon apagoge.

Hmm, I was not aware that I was employing reductio ad absurdum in my argument. In fact, since I was only expressing my experience of using the ICE Conditions of Contract; I was not really presenting an argument per se anyway.

quote:A consultant is not a man, a consultant is just another cog in the Principal-Agent problem in which risk and self-interest are at the core

Words fail me. Well, they don't, but my original post was not appropriate to post so I have deleted it.

With an attitude like that you are only going to set yourself up in confrontation with the consultants, which will not set you up well to achieve your avowed goals.

quote:I most certainly praised the dead.

I appear to have misunderstood then.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"A great victory for rangers and hamsters everywhere. Right, Boo?" - Minsc

[Unitof1]

mirrors and smoke

quote: In fact, since I was only expressing my experience of using the ICE Conditions of Contract; I was not really presenting an argument per se anyway.

you proffered the theory from which you took the defensive attack proposition

quote: I find that offensive.

of

quote:this is starting to sound like an ad hominem attack

by which you are suggesting that the collective term consultant is an identifiable person.

And as for

quote:Nil nisi bonum, old chap. Again, another ad hominem attack

its a gem, I suspect that it is recursive although colloquially in the words of the great sage the closest that I can imagine is the negative form of

Get of that without moving. Said as you strangle someone

I would also like to apologise that I mistook your almost perfect pr?cis of the Principal-Agent Problem with the cynics observation that the contract had a

quote: measurable manner

as a deep contemplation of it rather than a spontaneous and independent discovery by you but possibly reinvention is the consultants way. Have you heard of the wheel?

In conclusion in what way are consultants the answer to the Principle-Agent Problem?

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by Unitof1

mirrors and smoke

[?]mirrors and smoke[?] That's rich considering the content or lack thereof in your post. I see absolutely no point in even trying to continue this discussion because your post is neither constructive nor possessed of substance. Bring back Troll; at least Troll could construct a decent argument in a coherent manner.

I'm out of here.

Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique

"A great victory for rangers and hamsters everywhere. Right, Boo?" - Minsc