Delay Claims in U.K. ContractsSource: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management:;1997:;Volume ( 123 ):;issue: 003Author:Stephen Scott
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:3(238)Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
Abstract: Contract conditions in both the United Kingdom and the United States are sufficiently similar to allow common generic delay claim scenarios to be recognized, but there are important differences in the extent of legal precedent for assessing such claims. In the United States recognized procedures have been developed to allow critical path method (CPM) to be adopted in this area, while in the United Kingdom the situation is much less clear. It is true that U.K. professionals will generally recognize that CPM will be useful in dealing with delay claims, but there is little evidence that a standard approach has been accepted. A survey was conducted by the writer to discover how U.K. claims for delay were being prepared (by the contractors) and how they were being assessed (by the supervisors). Because of the complexity of this area, the study was approached in a number of ways. This paper presents conclusions concerning attitudes towards such claims and information about the mechanisms that are being adopted to prepare and evaluate them.
|
Show full item record
contributor author | Stephen Scott | |
date accessioned | 2017-05-08T22:37:55Z | |
date available | 2017-05-08T22:37:55Z | |
date copyright | September 1997 | |
date issued | 1997 | |
identifier other | %28asce%290733-9364%281997%29123%3A3%28238%29.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/84412 | |
description abstract | Contract conditions in both the United Kingdom and the United States are sufficiently similar to allow common generic delay claim scenarios to be recognized, but there are important differences in the extent of legal precedent for assessing such claims. In the United States recognized procedures have been developed to allow critical path method (CPM) to be adopted in this area, while in the United Kingdom the situation is much less clear. It is true that U.K. professionals will generally recognize that CPM will be useful in dealing with delay claims, but there is little evidence that a standard approach has been accepted. A survey was conducted by the writer to discover how U.K. claims for delay were being prepared (by the contractors) and how they were being assessed (by the supervisors). Because of the complexity of this area, the study was approached in a number of ways. This paper presents conclusions concerning attitudes towards such claims and information about the mechanisms that are being adopted to prepare and evaluate them. | |
publisher | American Society of Civil Engineers | |
title | Delay Claims in U.K. Contracts | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 123 | |
journal issue | 3 | |
journal title | Journal of Construction Engineering and Management | |
identifier doi | 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:3(238) | |
tree | Journal of Construction Engineering and Management:;1997:;Volume ( 123 ):;issue: 003 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |