Show simple item record

contributor authorStephen Scott
date accessioned2017-05-08T22:37:55Z
date available2017-05-08T22:37:55Z
date copyrightSeptember 1997
date issued1997
identifier other%28asce%290733-9364%281997%29123%3A3%28238%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/84412
description abstractContract 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.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleDelay Claims in U.K. Contracts
typeJournal Paper
journal volume123
journal issue3
journal titleJournal of Construction Engineering and Management
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1997)123:3(238)
treeJournal of Construction Engineering and Management:;1997:;Volume ( 123 ):;issue: 003
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record