Monday 28 May 2012
Lovefilm
http://www.imdb.com/list/nfZScTpGT_s/
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur27015120/lists
https://www.lovefilm.com/profile/SimonZohhadi
https://www.lovefilm.com/profile/reviews.html?profile=cff738673317a0c9146
My Favourite Films:
The Lives of Others
The Long Good Friday
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
It's A Wonderful Life
Taxi Driver
The Seventh Seal
At Five In The Afternoon
It's Winter
Bicycle Thieves
Devdas
Memento
The Godfather 1
The Godfather 11
Waltz With Bashir
A Moment of Innocence
Broken Embrace
Close Up
Schindler's List
The Artist
There Will Be Blood
Psycho
The Passion of the Christ
Brief Encounter
The Reader
The Crying Game
Wednesday 23 May 2012
My Eyes, My Heart: From the excellent album `As Night Falls On The Silk Road'.
From the excellent album `As Night Falls On The Silk Road'.
Tuesday 22 May 2012
What Is the 10000 Hour Rule?
This is the idea that it takes approximately 10000 hours of deliberate practice to master a skill.
For instance, it would take 10 years of practicing 3 hours a day to become a master in your subject. It would take approximately 5 years of full-time employment to become proficient in your field. Simply work out how many hours you have already achieved and calculate how far you need to go. You should be aiming for 10000 hours.
This is the idea that it takes approximately 10000 hours of deliberate practice to master a skill.
For instance, it would take 10 years of practicing 3 hours a day to become a master in your subject. It would take approximately 5 years of full-time employment to become proficient in your field. Simply work out how many hours you have already achieved and calculate how far you need to go. You should be aiming for 10000 hours.
The nature v nurture pendulum has a habit of swinging wildly. In the 1960s genetics and biology were out — everything was environmentally determined. Then we understood DNA, the sociobiologists emerged and everything was determined by our genes, our caveman past and the simple process of adaptation.
But the pendulum has swung back. This time the instigator is sports “science” and an idea sometimes called the 10,000 hours rule.
This states that whatever your ability, build or aptitude, you (or anybody) can show expert, talented performance with 10,000 hours of coached, motivated and structured practice.
Practice not only makes perfect, it makes talent. So if you practise yet don’t succeed in winning an Olympic gold or starting a hugely successful company, it is not that you lack the talent, but rather that you have not practised enough.
It’s the old line of “everyone has talent”. You make your talent. No matter the cards you have been dealt, no matter the fact that you may not have chosen your parents well. You can do it.
It seems that common sense goes straight out the window when managements, writers or motivational speakers, seeking gurus, try to interpret the science for their own ends.
First, it seems reasonable to assert that practice is an essential component for elite, expert or excellent performance, be it on the sports field, in the examination hall or in the office. Get a good coach, work hard, have a good practice schedule. But is that enough for real success?
However much focused and deliberate practice is undertaken, it is always constrained or limited. Let’s start with physique. Look at sprinters, swimmers, pole-vaulters. Notice not only their practice-induced musculature, but their height, leg length, foot size. They are remarkably similar within each sport, and are often somewhat different from the normal population.
And what of age? How many 50-year-old sprinters do you see? Things wear out, become weaker, don’t function as well. Even early experience is crucial. The earlier you start — playing the violin, skiing, speaking German — the easier it is to be proficient and, with practice, expert.
But here’s the rub. The sheer quantity of practice cannot finally explain the manifestly apparent differences between elite performers. Take 10 people, put them through the same well-designed but gruelling 20,000-hour practice programme — and one is a star, another an also-ran. That is latent talent.
Talent is not innate or fixed. It is potential that needs shaping. The seed is important but so is the soil, the fertiliser and the nutrients.
Some people learn faster than others. The skill comes more easily and quickly. They are naturals. They take to practice. Even when putting in maximum practice some people are constrained by natural limitations in physiology, morphology (shape) or capacity (intellect).
The investment theorists argue that talent comes from the application of motivation to ability. So people have different learning experiences and they exhibit their opportunities in quite different ways. The bright, curious child reads more and therefore becomes more knowledgeable.
Through experience, people find out more about their likes and their abilities. Some experience early failure, which then becomes self-fulfilling. The belief that they have little skill or talent in an area means they avoid it, practise little and never master it. Others persist, possibly driven by inner competitiveness or pushy parents. They are driven to be successful, willing to put in effort, relaxed about dealing with setbacks.
Some are driven by others. Take away the parent, teacher or coach and their motivation to practise dwindles. Stay in the right crowd and the motivation to succeed develops. Take these people away and the idea of the 10,000 hours to ensure success becomes deeply demotivating.
Different skills place different demands on an individual. These are necessary but not sufficient to become talented. People differ enormously in their passions and capacity to invest in their talents. Outside influences can help people over their performance plateau by only so much.
So talent is not a genetic endowment. It is not something that only needs to be “discovered” within. But nor can you acquire it by willpower alone. Talent for sport, business or art means in part having the right base requirements: size and shape of body and brain. But it requires hard work. Perspiration and inspiration. It is sad, but true, that not everyone has talent. Desire to be talented is not enough. Hard work — indeed, 100,000 hours of practice — will not suffice.
■ Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London
But the pendulum has swung back. This time the instigator is sports “science” and an idea sometimes called the 10,000 hours rule.
This states that whatever your ability, build or aptitude, you (or anybody) can show expert, talented performance with 10,000 hours of coached, motivated and structured practice.
Practice not only makes perfect, it makes talent. So if you practise yet don’t succeed in winning an Olympic gold or starting a hugely successful company, it is not that you lack the talent, but rather that you have not practised enough.
It’s the old line of “everyone has talent”. You make your talent. No matter the cards you have been dealt, no matter the fact that you may not have chosen your parents well. You can do it.
It seems that common sense goes straight out the window when managements, writers or motivational speakers, seeking gurus, try to interpret the science for their own ends.
First, it seems reasonable to assert that practice is an essential component for elite, expert or excellent performance, be it on the sports field, in the examination hall or in the office. Get a good coach, work hard, have a good practice schedule. But is that enough for real success?
However much focused and deliberate practice is undertaken, it is always constrained or limited. Let’s start with physique. Look at sprinters, swimmers, pole-vaulters. Notice not only their practice-induced musculature, but their height, leg length, foot size. They are remarkably similar within each sport, and are often somewhat different from the normal population.
And what of age? How many 50-year-old sprinters do you see? Things wear out, become weaker, don’t function as well. Even early experience is crucial. The earlier you start — playing the violin, skiing, speaking German — the easier it is to be proficient and, with practice, expert.
But here’s the rub. The sheer quantity of practice cannot finally explain the manifestly apparent differences between elite performers. Take 10 people, put them through the same well-designed but gruelling 20,000-hour practice programme — and one is a star, another an also-ran. That is latent talent.
Talent is not innate or fixed. It is potential that needs shaping. The seed is important but so is the soil, the fertiliser and the nutrients.
Some people learn faster than others. The skill comes more easily and quickly. They are naturals. They take to practice. Even when putting in maximum practice some people are constrained by natural limitations in physiology, morphology (shape) or capacity (intellect).
The investment theorists argue that talent comes from the application of motivation to ability. So people have different learning experiences and they exhibit their opportunities in quite different ways. The bright, curious child reads more and therefore becomes more knowledgeable.
Through experience, people find out more about their likes and their abilities. Some experience early failure, which then becomes self-fulfilling. The belief that they have little skill or talent in an area means they avoid it, practise little and never master it. Others persist, possibly driven by inner competitiveness or pushy parents. They are driven to be successful, willing to put in effort, relaxed about dealing with setbacks.
Some are driven by others. Take away the parent, teacher or coach and their motivation to practise dwindles. Stay in the right crowd and the motivation to succeed develops. Take these people away and the idea of the 10,000 hours to ensure success becomes deeply demotivating.
Different skills place different demands on an individual. These are necessary but not sufficient to become talented. People differ enormously in their passions and capacity to invest in their talents. Outside influences can help people over their performance plateau by only so much.
So talent is not a genetic endowment. It is not something that only needs to be “discovered” within. But nor can you acquire it by willpower alone. Talent for sport, business or art means in part having the right base requirements: size and shape of body and brain. But it requires hard work. Perspiration and inspiration. It is sad, but true, that not everyone has talent. Desire to be talented is not enough. Hard work — indeed, 100,000 hours of practice — will not suffice.
■ Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London
Monday 14 May 2012
Jerram Falkus Construction v Fenice Investments
http://www.construction-manager.co.uk/construction-professional/garry-winters-case-notes-march-2012/
This case provides useful guidance on several matters. Regarding conclusiveness, while ordinarily adjudicator’s decisions are only temporarily binding until resolved by litigation, arbitration or agreement, as this case shows there is nothing preventing such decisions from becoming conclusive in certain circumstances.
This case also highlights the potential pitfalls in amending extension of time provisions. Contrary to common belief, extension of time clauses are for the benefit of the employer by permitting the contractor more time to complete for events which occur which are the employer’s responsibility.
Without such clauses, the employer cannot hold the contractor to the completion date if by their own act or omission they have prevented this. In such circumstances time becomes “at large”, meaning the contractor is no longer bound by the completion date or the liquidated damages provisions and their duty is to complete within a reasonable period.
Had the relevant event contract clauses not been deleted Jerram would have been unable to forward the time at large allegation and avoid the consequences even if it was correct on the cause of delay.
The court has clarified that if there are concurrent delays for which the contractor is responsible, a claim for time being at large will be unsuccessful.
Legal
Garry Winter’s Case notes: March 2012
Jerram Falkus Construction v Fenice Investments
Technology and Construction Court, July 2011
Jerram was employed by Fenice under a JCT design and build contract to construct a development in Camden, north London. The contract contained some amendments, including deletion of the extension of time clauses permitting the employer to grant further time to the contractor resulting from any impediment, prevention or default by the employer and work or failure to carry out work by statutory bodies.
Other amendments sought to make the final account and adjudicator’s decisions conclusive in certain circumstances, including where the dispute was referred to adjudication after the final account submission. Here, it required a challenge to the decision by litigation or arbitration within 28 days to prevent the decision becoming binding.
The original contract completion date was 25 May 2009, but under the remaining extension of time provisions that had been extended to 15 June 2009. In fact, practical completion was not achieved until 9 September 2009.
Jerram’s view was that Fenice was responsible for the delay and as such included a claim for loss and expense in its final account, alleging a balance was due of £311,393.78. Fenice disagreed and levied liquidated damages for the delay.
In September 2010 Fenice referred the dispute to adjudication in which it sought a declaration that Jerram was not entitled to any further extension of time. Jerram said the delay was due to the employer delaying decisions, issuing late instructions and delays caused by EDF and British Gas. As the clauses permitting the employer to extend the completion date for such acts had been deleted, Jerram claimed Fenice could no longer extend time and as such time was at large.
In October 2010 the adjudicator decided in favour of Fenice. Jerram, unhappy with the decision, sought to litigate the matter, but did not issue proceedings until March 2011, more than 28 days after the adjudicator’s decision.
In court, along with responsibility for the delay and its associated costs or damages, Fenice also alleged the adjudicator’s decision was conclusive, preventing the court from considering the matters.
The court concluded that under this contract, where adjudication was started after submitting the final account, a challenge to an adjudicator’s decision was required within 28 days of that date. Jerram had not done so and so the decision was conclusive. Jerram was employed by Fenice under a JCT design and build contract to construct a development in Camden, north London. The contract contained some amendments, including deletion of the extension of time clauses permitting the employer to grant further time to the contractor resulting from any impediment, prevention or default by the employer and work or failure to carry out work by statutory bodies.
Other amendments sought to make the final account and adjudicator’s decisions conclusive in certain circumstances, including where the dispute was referred to adjudication after the final account submission. Here, it required a challenge to the decision by litigation or arbitration within 28 days to prevent the decision becoming binding.
The original contract completion date was 25 May 2009, but under the remaining extension of time provisions that had been extended to 15 June 2009. In fact, practical completion was not achieved until 9 September 2009.
Jerram’s view was that Fenice was responsible for the delay and as such included a claim for loss and expense in its final account, alleging a balance was due of £311,393.78. Fenice disagreed and levied liquidated damages for the delay.
In September 2010 Fenice referred the dispute to adjudication in which it sought a declaration that Jerram was not entitled to any further extension of time. Jerram said the delay was due to the employer delaying decisions, issuing late instructions and delays caused by EDF and British Gas. As the clauses permitting the employer to extend the completion date for such acts had been deleted, Jerram claimed Fenice could no longer extend time and as such time was at large.
In October 2010 the adjudicator decided in favour of Fenice. Jerram, unhappy with the decision, sought to litigate the matter, but did not issue proceedings until March 2011, more than 28 days after the adjudicator’s decision.
In court, along with responsibility for the delay and its associated costs or damages, Fenice also alleged the adjudicator’s decision was conclusive, preventing the court from considering the matters.
The court concluded that under this contract, where adjudication was started after submitting the final account, a challenge to an adjudicator’s decision was required within 28 days of that date. Jerram had not done so and so the decision was conclusive.
Garry Winter’s analysis This case provides useful guidance on several matters. Regarding conclusiveness, while ordinarily adjudicator’s decisions are only temporarily binding until resolved by litigation, arbitration or agreement, as this case shows there is nothing preventing such decisions from becoming conclusive in certain circumstances.
This case also highlights the potential pitfalls in amending extension of time provisions. Contrary to common belief, extension of time clauses are for the benefit of the employer by permitting the contractor more time to complete for events which occur which are the employer’s responsibility.
Without such clauses, the employer cannot hold the contractor to the completion date if by their own act or omission they have prevented this. In such circumstances time becomes “at large”, meaning the contractor is no longer bound by the completion date or the liquidated damages provisions and their duty is to complete within a reasonable period.
Had the relevant event contract clauses not been deleted Jerram would have been unable to forward the time at large allegation and avoid the consequences even if it was correct on the cause of delay.
The court has clarified that if there are concurrent delays for which the contractor is responsible, a claim for time being at large will be unsuccessful.
Led Zeppelin-Trampled Under Foot
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Graffiti-Led-Zeppelin/dp/B000002JSN
Highly recommended: A great album I first bought in my school days. One of the four great Led Zeppelin albums. The others being Led Zeppelin 2, Led Zeppelin 3 & Led Zeppelin 4.
Thursday 10 May 2012
Tuesday 8 May 2012
To Build or Not To Build
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014hksk/episodes/guide
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gsrv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014hksk/episodes/guide#b014hktl
Episode 7
To Build or Not To build (Series 2 Episode 7) - Cridling Stubbs
Self-build home (4 bedrooms) in Cridling Stubbs in Yorkshire - made out of ultra-light polystyrene blocks bonded together with concrete (method been around for 50 years). 100,000 built worldwide. Plot of land £102k. Energy efficient home. Build Budget £150k. Total Budget £252k. Final Cost £282k. Valuation £275k.
Polystyrene blocks (£7k for house) - materials twice as expensive as breeze block construction but quicker building system and savings on labour.
Episode 5
To Build or Not To Build: Residential Self-Build - German
Kit Home in Nottingham.
Notes: Spanish Floor Tiles. Copper Guttering. Crane Hire £500 per day. Plot of Land = £200k. Overall value: £1.05m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gsrv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014hksk/episodes/guide#b014hktl
Episode 7
Episode 7 of 20, To Build or Not to Build, Series 2
Duration: 45 minutes
Can long-distance lorry driver Andy Scott and his wife Carol navigate a difficult road while self-building a new home made from polystyrene blocks in North Yorkshire? Plus the tale of the kitchen designers with six children who built their very own ranch in the Scottish borders, and presenter Simon O'Brien tries his hand at tiling at building college.
To Build or Not To build (Series 2 Episode 7) - Cridling Stubbs
Self-build home (4 bedrooms) in Cridling Stubbs in Yorkshire - made out of ultra-light polystyrene blocks bonded together with concrete (method been around for 50 years). 100,000 built worldwide. Plot of land £102k. Energy efficient home. Build Budget £150k. Total Budget £252k. Final Cost £282k. Valuation £275k.
Polystyrene blocks (£7k for house) - materials twice as expensive as breeze block construction but quicker building system and savings on labour.
Episode 5
Episode 5 of 20, To Build or Not to Build, Series 2
Duration: 45 minutes 2011 Prices
Every year 20,000 people in the UK make the bold decision to build their own home and we're following some of them as they go from foundations to finishing touches.
All our self-builders are aiming to build their dream home that's perfectly suited to their way of life and their wallets but each build's a rollercoaster ride packed full of trials and tribulations.
On today's programme, retired couple Dick and Irene Atkin are selling their spacious family home in Edwalton, Nottingham and building a modern German kit-home just around the corner. Plus the estate agent and his wife who've built an idyllic cottage in the country and presenter Simon O'Brien finds out that building a block wall isn't a breeze at building college.
Watched 8th May 2012
All our self-builders are aiming to build their dream home that's perfectly suited to their way of life and their wallets but each build's a rollercoaster ride packed full of trials and tribulations.
On today's programme, retired couple Dick and Irene Atkin are selling their spacious family home in Edwalton, Nottingham and building a modern German kit-home just around the corner. Plus the estate agent and his wife who've built an idyllic cottage in the country and presenter Simon O'Brien finds out that building a block wall isn't a breeze at building college.
Watched 8th May 2012
To Build or Not To Build: Residential Self-Build - German
Kit Home in Nottingham.
Notes: Spanish Floor Tiles. Copper Guttering. Crane Hire £500 per day. Plot of Land = £200k. Overall value: £1.05m.
Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967) "How to Die"
Dark clouds are smouldering into red
While down the craters morning burns.
The dying soldier shifts his head
To watch the glory that returns;
He lifts his fingers toward the skies
Where holy brightness breaks in flame;
Radiance reflected in his eyes,
And on his lips a whispered name.
You'd think, to hear some people talk,
That lads go West with sobs and curses,
And sullen faces white as chalk,
Hankering for wreaths and tombs and hearses.
But they've been taught the way to do it
Like Christian soldiers; not with haste
And shuddering groans; but passing through it
With due regard for decent taste.
While down the craters morning burns.
The dying soldier shifts his head
To watch the glory that returns;
He lifts his fingers toward the skies
Where holy brightness breaks in flame;
Radiance reflected in his eyes,
And on his lips a whispered name.
You'd think, to hear some people talk,
That lads go West with sobs and curses,
And sullen faces white as chalk,
Hankering for wreaths and tombs and hearses.
But they've been taught the way to do it
Like Christian soldiers; not with haste
And shuddering groans; but passing through it
With due regard for decent taste.
Rupert Brooke - The Soldier
IF I should die, think only this of me:
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by the suns of home.
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is forever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware,
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's, breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by the suns of home.
And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.
Wilfred Owen (1893-1918) - "Dulce et Decorum Est "
| Dulce Et Decorum Est, by Wilfred Owen (1893 - 1918) | ||||
Wilfred Owen's famous poem is based on a quotation from the
Latin poet Horace (Odes, iii ii 13), meaning 'It is sweet and proper to die for
one's country'.
Owen, one of the leading First World War poets, was killed one week before
the WWI ended. Dulce Et Decorum Est is his most famous poem and one of the most
searing war poems ever written.
Dulce Et Decorum Est brings home at an individual level the horror and barbarity of what happens during war. It also hightlights twin gulfs - between those who risk horrible death at the front and those who don't, and between the pursuance of diplomacy and the stark barbarity of armed conflict. It was the experiences of gas attacks in the First World War that led to the designation of gas as an prohibited weapon under the Gas Protocol of the Geneva Conventions in 1925. Winston Churchill is believed to have considered using gas against Germany, despite the ban, though he never gave the order to do so. Had Wilfred Owen survived into the 1980s he would would have been shocked to learn of the use of gas by Saddam Hussain not only against Iranian troops in the Iran-Iraq war (with the tacit sanction of his Western supporters), but also (this time without sanction) against his own civilian population at Halabja.
Dulce Et Decorum Est - Wilfred OwenBent double, like old beggars under sacks,Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned out backs, And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots, But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame, all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of gas-shells dropping softly behind. Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time, But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.-- Dim through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams before my helpless sight He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning. If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin, If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs Bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-- My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori. Wilfred Owen, first published 1921 |
Perfume of the Desert
Four Things to Know
Hatim al-Asamm said, "I have chosen four things to know
and discarded all other things of knowledge.
"The first is this: I know that my daily bread is apportioned
to me and will neither be increased or decreased, so I have stopped
trying to add to it.
"Secondly, I know I owe to God a debt which no one else can
pay for me, so I am busy about paying it.
"Thirdly, I know that there is someone pursuing me ---
Death --- whom I cannot escape from, so I have prepared myself
to meet him.
"Fourth, I know that God is observing me, so I am ashamed
to do what I should not."
Farid ud Din Attar, translation by Andrew Harvey and Eryk Hanut - 'Perfume of the Desert'
Hatim al-Asamm said, "I have chosen four things to know
and discarded all other things of knowledge.
"The first is this: I know that my daily bread is apportioned
to me and will neither be increased or decreased, so I have stopped
trying to add to it.
"Secondly, I know I owe to God a debt which no one else can
pay for me, so I am busy about paying it.
"Thirdly, I know that there is someone pursuing me ---
Death --- whom I cannot escape from, so I have prepared myself
to meet him.
"Fourth, I know that God is observing me, so I am ashamed
to do what I should not."
Farid ud Din Attar, translation by Andrew Harvey and Eryk Hanut - 'Perfume of the Desert'
Hardwood Floors
Hardwood Floors commonly used: red oak, beech, maple, white oak, walnut, birch & ash. Moisture content drops from 40-60% to 7% in drier with the use of fans circulating hot air. Drying process 10 days to a month depending on species. After drying process, wood is cut to standard sizes in factory. Optimiser reads dimensions of each plank before cut to size. Flooring made from medium instead of top quality timber to make prices competitive. Knots and other defects cut out. Timber planks then moulded - tongues and grooves. Country of origin stamp. Then graded. Quality & colour. Pre-finish: Sanded then stained then subsequent coats colourless. Avoids polishing on site & avoidance of smell.
Monday 7 May 2012
Saturday 5 May 2012
QS Legal Cases
J&J Properties
(Antrim) Ltd v Durnien
Year – 2010
Subject Matter – Error in the BQ leads to QS liability
The work which is provided for in a contract and items which are excluded need to be spelt out from the outset. A QS got himself into hot water for not making it clear that the bills of quantities he prepared made no provision for site preparation work and piling. To be fair to the QS, the site preparation work and piling wasn’t left out in error; he thought it had been allowed for elsewhere in the scheme. The project in question was a development in Northern Ireland. The developers were a couple of rookies, with no experience of construction work at all until they became involved in the scheme on which the problem occurred, ultimately leading to the case of J&J Properties (Antrim) Ltd v Durnien (2010)
The claimant entered into a contract for the design and construction of 28 houses for Clanmil Housing Association in the sum of £2,030,000. Mr McMaster was appointed by the claimant as Architect and he subsequently introduced the QS Mr Durnien to the claimant. The contract documents were drawn up by Mr Durnien, which included bills of quantities. A contract was entered into with John Sturgenor for the construction of the houses in the sum of £1,285,065.94. Unfortunately the bills of quantities and a contract sum analysis didn’t mention the site preparation work and piling.
There was no argument that the site preparation work and piling was unknown to the claimant, as it had been referred to in correspondence with the Housing Association’s agent and the time allowed for the scheme had been extended from 15 months to 18 months to allow for the work. However it seems to have dropped down the crack, as no allowance was made in the costings for the scheme. It was the claimants case that he had left such matters to the defendant QS and hadn’t concerned himself with the details.
The court took the view that whilst the claimants were aware of the need for the site clearance work and piling, it was reasonable for them to have left the detail to the QS, who would be responsible for any shortfall. The court held that the QS had been negligent in not including the site clearance and piling in the bills of quantities. As the QS was also the project manager for the scheme, he should have been aware that nobody had been appointed to undertake the work. Where this type of error occurs and something is missed out of the bills of quantities, the usual defence is to argue that as the price for the work left out is an essential part of the cost for the project, the scheme would cost the same whether the item had been included in the bills of quantities, or dealt with as a variation. In this case the developer successfully argued that had the QS included the site clearance work and piling in the bills of quantities, the scheme would not have been profitable and the contract would not have gone ahead.
It was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover from the QS the sum of £150,596, which was the cost of the site clearance work and piling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject Matter – Evaluation of Prolongation Costs
Quantity Surveyors are often called upon to ascertain the loss and expense relating to prolongation once the architect or engineer has made a decision concerning a contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time. In doing so, it is essential for the quantity surveyor to ensure that the ascertainment is based upon actual provable loss, cost and expense, and that there is a causal link with the delay. In the case of Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell and Partners Ltd (2009), the court had to make a decision with regard to an entitlement to the recovery of prolongation costs, as to the manner in which they should be calculated.
Costain employed Haswell to provide advice concerning the design of foundations for Lostock and Rivington Water Treatment Works near Bolton. In November 2002 Haswell produced a Settlement Analysis Report which recommended that the Rapid Gravity Filters (RGF) and Inlet Works (IW) be constructed using Ground Treatment Works. These structures formed part of a larger project which was being undertaken by Costain on behalf of United Utilities. Costain had sought advice from Charles Haswell concerning the design of the ground works which was used in building up the tender. It proved to be unsatisfactory and Costain was forced to switch to piled foundations at considerable additional cost. Costain commenced an action for breach of contract which was successful; they then sought to recover the additional costs from Haswell, including additional expenditure in respect of the delays which resulted from the introduction of piling.
The court having found in favour of Costain on liability then had to make a decision regarding quantum. The RGF and IW were only two out of ten structures which comprised the contract works. However the experts from both sides agreed that the piling was on the critical path and that Costain was entitled to be paid prolongation cost. The parties however were in dispute as to how the prolongation costs should be calculated. However they both agreed that they should be ascertained at the time the foundations were being constructed. No submission was made as to the effect of the additional piling on the completion date for the project. Costain’s entitlement to an extension of time for completion of the works was not an issue in these proceedings only the liability and additional cost which flows from Haswell’s breach of contract.
The court decided that the introduction of piling had delayed the progress of the work in the RGF and IW from 25th October 2002 until 6th January 2003 and that Costain was entitled to be paid their prolongation costs in respect of this period. Costain claimed the total weekly prolongation costs for the whole of the project, which amounted to £35,000 per week. It was argued by Haswell that this amount should not be paid as it represented the prolongation costs for the whole site, whereas the piling delays only affected the Rapid Gravity Filters and Inlet Works and therefore the claim should be rejected in its entirety. The judge agreed with Haswell when he observed:
“But no evidence has been called to establish that the delaying events in question in fact caused delay to any activities on site apart from the RGF and IW buildings. That being so, it follows, in my judgment, that the prolongation claim advanced by Costain based on recovery of the whole of the site costs of the Lostock site fails for want of proof”
The judge was reluctant to award Costain nothing in respect of this item, and ascertained from Haswell’s expert that the tender value of the RGF and IW was 13% of the total tender sum and, as a result, awarded Costain 13% of £35,000 per week, giving a total of £36,400.
Costain had been in dispute with United Utilities concerning delays to completion, entitlements to an extension of time and the resultant prolongation cost entitlement. A deal was struck by the parties, under which a global settlement was agreed. It was not clear how much was included in respect of prolongation costs, but the judge considered that based upon the total settlement amount, there could be a danger of double recovery. As there was no contemporaneous evidence of the build up of the settlement amount, the judge decided, based upon no evidence, that the amount otherwise payable by Haswell to Costain would have been less than the amount already recovered from United Utilities. Therefore, as any money for prolongation costs payable by Haswell to Costain would amount to double recovery, Costain was awarded nothing in respect of this item. They had to be satisfied with recovering the cost of the piling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case of Proforce Recruitment Ltd v Rugby Group Ltd
(2007) illustrates that preferred supplier status doesn’t mean exclusive,
or priority rights, in fact there is no guarantee that work will necessarily
flow from the arrangement. What it does indicate is that the supplier has been
approved by or on behalf of the customer and therefore does not need to be subject
to any further checks or evaluation process by or on behalf of the customer.
S ubject Matter –
Liability for negligent procurement advice
City Inn concluded that both the
adjudicator Mr Spencely and Lord Macfadyen were wrong and as only they and their advisers were correct, a
decision was made to appeal the decision to the Inner House of the Court of
Session in Edinburgh. Appeal City Inn appealed Lord McFadden’s
decision in respect of the manner in which he had interpreted the conditions of
contract relating to extensions of time. Their appeal also dealt with his
interpretation of clause 13.8. The court considered the judgements in a dozen
or more cases, which reached far and wide, involving construction, shipping and
other areas of commerce heard in the UK, Australia and the USA. The most
noteworthy cases to which reference was made were:
Year – 2010
Subject Matter – Error in the BQ leads to QS liability
The work which is provided for in a contract and items which are excluded need to be spelt out from the outset. A QS got himself into hot water for not making it clear that the bills of quantities he prepared made no provision for site preparation work and piling. To be fair to the QS, the site preparation work and piling wasn’t left out in error; he thought it had been allowed for elsewhere in the scheme. The project in question was a development in Northern Ireland. The developers were a couple of rookies, with no experience of construction work at all until they became involved in the scheme on which the problem occurred, ultimately leading to the case of J&J Properties (Antrim) Ltd v Durnien (2010)
The claimant entered into a contract for the design and construction of 28 houses for Clanmil Housing Association in the sum of £2,030,000. Mr McMaster was appointed by the claimant as Architect and he subsequently introduced the QS Mr Durnien to the claimant. The contract documents were drawn up by Mr Durnien, which included bills of quantities. A contract was entered into with John Sturgenor for the construction of the houses in the sum of £1,285,065.94. Unfortunately the bills of quantities and a contract sum analysis didn’t mention the site preparation work and piling.
There was no argument that the site preparation work and piling was unknown to the claimant, as it had been referred to in correspondence with the Housing Association’s agent and the time allowed for the scheme had been extended from 15 months to 18 months to allow for the work. However it seems to have dropped down the crack, as no allowance was made in the costings for the scheme. It was the claimants case that he had left such matters to the defendant QS and hadn’t concerned himself with the details.
The court took the view that whilst the claimants were aware of the need for the site clearance work and piling, it was reasonable for them to have left the detail to the QS, who would be responsible for any shortfall. The court held that the QS had been negligent in not including the site clearance and piling in the bills of quantities. As the QS was also the project manager for the scheme, he should have been aware that nobody had been appointed to undertake the work. Where this type of error occurs and something is missed out of the bills of quantities, the usual defence is to argue that as the price for the work left out is an essential part of the cost for the project, the scheme would cost the same whether the item had been included in the bills of quantities, or dealt with as a variation. In this case the developer successfully argued that had the QS included the site clearance work and piling in the bills of quantities, the scheme would not have been profitable and the contract would not have gone ahead.
It was held by the court that the claimant was entitled to recover from the QS the sum of £150,596, which was the cost of the site clearance work and piling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costain Ltd v Charles
Haswell and Partners Ltd
Year 2009Subject Matter – Evaluation of Prolongation Costs
Quantity Surveyors are often called upon to ascertain the loss and expense relating to prolongation once the architect or engineer has made a decision concerning a contractor’s entitlement to an extension of time. In doing so, it is essential for the quantity surveyor to ensure that the ascertainment is based upon actual provable loss, cost and expense, and that there is a causal link with the delay. In the case of Costain Ltd v Charles Haswell and Partners Ltd (2009), the court had to make a decision with regard to an entitlement to the recovery of prolongation costs, as to the manner in which they should be calculated.
Costain employed Haswell to provide advice concerning the design of foundations for Lostock and Rivington Water Treatment Works near Bolton. In November 2002 Haswell produced a Settlement Analysis Report which recommended that the Rapid Gravity Filters (RGF) and Inlet Works (IW) be constructed using Ground Treatment Works. These structures formed part of a larger project which was being undertaken by Costain on behalf of United Utilities. Costain had sought advice from Charles Haswell concerning the design of the ground works which was used in building up the tender. It proved to be unsatisfactory and Costain was forced to switch to piled foundations at considerable additional cost. Costain commenced an action for breach of contract which was successful; they then sought to recover the additional costs from Haswell, including additional expenditure in respect of the delays which resulted from the introduction of piling.
The court having found in favour of Costain on liability then had to make a decision regarding quantum. The RGF and IW were only two out of ten structures which comprised the contract works. However the experts from both sides agreed that the piling was on the critical path and that Costain was entitled to be paid prolongation cost. The parties however were in dispute as to how the prolongation costs should be calculated. However they both agreed that they should be ascertained at the time the foundations were being constructed. No submission was made as to the effect of the additional piling on the completion date for the project. Costain’s entitlement to an extension of time for completion of the works was not an issue in these proceedings only the liability and additional cost which flows from Haswell’s breach of contract.
The court decided that the introduction of piling had delayed the progress of the work in the RGF and IW from 25th October 2002 until 6th January 2003 and that Costain was entitled to be paid their prolongation costs in respect of this period. Costain claimed the total weekly prolongation costs for the whole of the project, which amounted to £35,000 per week. It was argued by Haswell that this amount should not be paid as it represented the prolongation costs for the whole site, whereas the piling delays only affected the Rapid Gravity Filters and Inlet Works and therefore the claim should be rejected in its entirety. The judge agreed with Haswell when he observed:
“But no evidence has been called to establish that the delaying events in question in fact caused delay to any activities on site apart from the RGF and IW buildings. That being so, it follows, in my judgment, that the prolongation claim advanced by Costain based on recovery of the whole of the site costs of the Lostock site fails for want of proof”
The judge was reluctant to award Costain nothing in respect of this item, and ascertained from Haswell’s expert that the tender value of the RGF and IW was 13% of the total tender sum and, as a result, awarded Costain 13% of £35,000 per week, giving a total of £36,400.
Costain had been in dispute with United Utilities concerning delays to completion, entitlements to an extension of time and the resultant prolongation cost entitlement. A deal was struck by the parties, under which a global settlement was agreed. It was not clear how much was included in respect of prolongation costs, but the judge considered that based upon the total settlement amount, there could be a danger of double recovery. As there was no contemporaneous evidence of the build up of the settlement amount, the judge decided, based upon no evidence, that the amount otherwise payable by Haswell to Costain would have been less than the amount already recovered from United Utilities. Therefore, as any money for prolongation costs payable by Haswell to Costain would amount to double recovery, Costain was awarded nothing in respect of this item. They had to be satisfied with recovering the cost of the piling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proforce Recruitment
Ltd v Rugby Group Ltd
Year -2007
Subject Matter -What
is Preferred Supplier, does it guarantee a supply of work?
The Building
Merchant’s News, in its 5th November 2010 publication, announced on its front page:
“Everbuild Building
Products has secured a significant UK-wide agreement with the National Building
Group (NBG) to become the preferred supplier of building chemicals adhesives
and sealants to the organisation’s network of independent builder’s merchants.
The agreement, which
will see Everbuild replacing Bostick as the main supplier of building chemicals
to NBG members is worth in the region of £3m of new business”
This is obviously good news for Everbuild, however despite
the reference to £3m of new business, what rights would Everbuild have if in
reality the new business fell well short of the £3m, or in a worst case
scenario no new business at all came its way.
Proforce entered into
a contract with Rugby Group Ltd to supply cleaning services and equipment. A
contract was entered into for a two year minimum period during which Proforce
would hold preferred supplier status for supplying cleaning staff and
equipment. There was no definition of preferred supplier and during the two
year period Rugby began to use other agencies to supply it with cleaning staff
and equipment. Proforce commenced an action against Rugby for breach of
contract in which they argued that the contract contained the following implied
entitlements:
- Proforce would be offered
the first opportunity to supply cleaning staff and equipment in preference
to other suppliers
- Rugby would not obtain
cleaning staff and equipment from any other agency without first giving
Proforce a reasonable opportunity to meet Rugby’s requirements.
- The contract required
Rugby to obtain all of their cleaning staff and equipment form Proforce
The courts
established the rights of the parties, by reference to what a reasonable
person, having all the background knowledge available to the parties, would
interpret the contract to mean. In other words what the objective man/woman on
the bus/train (in days gone by the man on the Clapham omnibus) might have
thought. It was the view of the court that a reasonable person, having all
the knowledge available to the parties
at the time the contract was entered into, would consider the words preferred
supplier to mean only approved supplier. Where the words preferred supplier are
used, it does not mean that the supplier is preferred above all others; there
is no entitlement to exclusive rights.
Having supplied a great deal of cleaning staff and equipment
to Rugby during the two year period, it seems
that this did not satisfy Proforce, who considered that they were legally
entitled to supply all of Rugby’s requirements. If a party to a contract
is to have exclusive rights, it is essential that those right are properly
spelt out it the contract.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Case -
Plymouth and South West Co-operative Society Ltd v Architecture and Structure
and Management Ltd
Year – 2006
Architects and Engineers are usually involved in projects
from the outset. Early advice given often relates to the procurement methods to
be adopted. There is an ever growing array of alternatives from which to
choose. Is it to be lowest price, or partnering with collaborative working?
Will contractor design be appropriate and is this procurement method in the
client’s best interest? If a JCT contract is to be employed, will the advice
regarding which of the JCT alternatives will apply follow the recommendations
included in “Deciding on the Appropriate JCT Contract” published by the JCT? If
the project is mainly of an engineering nature, should the client be advised to
use the current version of the standard ICE contract or the NEC contract?
The possibility
always exists for the recommendation under the circumstances to be incorrect.
For example, an Architect may recommend that a JCT With Quantities Form of
Contract be used. This is a contract which involves the Architect producing a
full design and the Quantity Surveyor a complete Bill of Quantities before the
work goes out to tender. This process is time consuming if it is to be done
properly. It is not suitable where time constraints required tenders to be
received at a time which would not allow sufficient time for the design to be
properly completed and a full Bill of Quantities prepared. Delays and
additional cost may be incurred during the construction period as a result of
the Architects drawings not being issued to the contractor on time. Under the circumstances a Design and Build
would have been more suitable.
The wrong choice of
procurement method was the issue in the case of Plymouth and South West Co-operative Society Ltd v Architecture and
Structure and Management Ltd (2006). Plymouth and West Co-operative Society
Ltd (Plymco) wished to develop its flagship store including the construction of
a number of retail units at Derry Cross Plymouth. Plymco appointed Architecture
Structure and Management Ltd (ASM) to undertake the necessary architectural,
engineering and quantity surveying services. It was a priority that the cost of
the scheme did not exceed £5.5m. ASM produced a budget in the sum of £5.65m and
were instructed to make savings to ensure the price fell within the budget.
Plymco’s board decided to go ahead with the scheme in April 1996 and ASM was
appointed shortly thereafter. On 10th October 1996 an agreement for
lease was signed by Plymco with Argos which provided for the completion of the
Argos works by 21st April 1997. It was anticipated that the building
contract would be let by July or August 1996. One of the problems associated
with the scheme was that it was a requirement that the store remained open for
business during the construction of the works.
ASM advised letting
the building contract by means of a two stage tender process using the National
Joint Consultative Consultative Committee for Building’s Code, with a view to
entering into a JCT 1980 With Approximate Quantities Form of Contract.
Competitive tenders were received and Exeter Building Company (EBC) was
selected in late October 1996. The contract however was not signed until
January 1997. The contract sum was £5,036,061 however due to the tight
timescale, 87% of the Approximate Bill of Quantities was provisional and
described as “not detailed save in outline”
It was alleged by
Plymco that a £2 million overspend resulted from the procurement method
recommended by ASM which made it impossible to operate effective cost control.
It was alleged that ASM should have advised that the work be carried out in two
distinct phases. The first phase to comprise the work for Argos, followed by
the remainder of the work.
The court held that
ASM’s over-riding obligation was to ensure that the cost of the work did not
exceed £5 million. ASM had a duty to advise Plymco on the most suitable method
of procurement. It was the courts view that ASM should have advised as to what
decisions were required to be taken by Plymco and the dates by which they were
to be made, but has failed to do so. It was the view of the court that ASM
should have advised Plymco to have work been carried out in two phases, which
would have resulted in a later completion of the works, but with cost
certainty. The court was convinced that Plymco would have accepted this advice.
Whilst this case went
against the Architect, it is often very difficult to demonstrate that if a
different method of procurement had been employed from the one advised, the
costs incurred would have been less. In the Plymco case, no doubt ASM were
under great pressure to secure the completion of all the work by 21st
April 1997. It is easy for the judge in
hindsight to say that if ASM had suggested a two phase scheme, with completion
of all but the Argos work at a much later date, it would have been accepted by
Plymco. In any event it is likely that had a two phase procurement been
accepted it is likely that the cost ceiling would have been breached. ASM
however appear to have badly managed the process of securing decisions from
Plymco, which were essential for completion of the project, resulting no doubt
in delay and additional cost.
There are examples of
cases being brought by contractors against professional consultants they have
engaged in compiling their tenders. In the case of Copthorne Hotel v Arup and
Associates (1996) the pre-tender assessment of piling costs was half the actual
costs incurred by the contractor but negligence was not established. In a case
relating to advice provided by professional consultants in assisting
contractors to secure contracts the contractor must be able to show that it relied
upon the information provided by the consultant, which they often are unable to
demonstrate. In Gable House Estates v Halpern Partnership (1996) it was shown
that the employer would have taken a course of action regardless of the
consultant advice, which meant there was no loss involved.
In cases of this
kind, expert evidence plays a large part. In the Plymco case, experts appointed
for both sides were of the opinion that if cost certainty was the objective and
if Plymco lacked sufficient experience of this kind of work and the need to
make timely decisions, then ASM had not performed its duties in the appropriate
manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Case - City
Inn v Shepherd Construction
Year -2010
Subject Matter
–Entitlement to extension of time; concurrent delays
This case dealt with a dispute concerning the contractor’s
entitlement to an extension of time and the employer’s right to deduct
liquidated damages. The fixing of a revised completion date is not a precise
science and various methods of arriving at an answer have been approved by the
courts, some of which appear to be in conflict with each other.
The case in question involved City Inn and Shepherd
Construction, in relation to the construction of a hotel in Bristol. The
contract used was the JCT Private Edition With Quantities, 1980 Edition, which
had been amended. The Date for Possession was 26th January 1998, and
the Date for Completion, 25th January 1999. Practical Completion was
certified as having occurred on 29th March 1999. The original
Architect, RMJM, was dismissed and replaced by Keppie in December 1998. Delays
occurred, Shepherd requested an extension of time and Keppie awarded four weeks
to provide a revised Date for Completion of 22nd February 1999. The
liquidated damages figure included in the contract was £30,000 per week. With a
five week overrun having occurred to the extended completion date, City Inn
deducted liquidated damages in full in the sum of £150,000.
Shepherd Construction was not satisfied with the extension
of time which had been granted by the Architect and referred the matter to
adjudication. The adjudicator, Mr John Spencely, found in favour of Shepherd
Construction and in his decision ordered that the £150,000 deducted by City Inn
should be repaid. City Inn disputed the decision of the adjudicator and
referred the matter to court. It was contended by City Inn that Shepherd
Construction was not entitled to any extension of time at all and should
therefore have completed the works by the original completion date of 25th
January 1999.
City Inn’s Case
City Inn supported their argument
that there was no entitlement to an extension of time with two reasons:
- Clause 13.8 was a special
clause which does not appear in the standard form used for the
contract. This clause states that
where an Architect’s Instruction was liable to delay the completion date,
the contractor should not carry out the instruction without following certain
defined procedures. If the contractor failed to follow the procedures, he
would not become entitled to any extension of time for completion. It was
alleged, on behalf of City Inn, that Shepherd Construction did not follow
the procedure.
Alternatively
- If the delays had been
caused by Architect’s Instructions, the delays were running concurrent
with delays caused by Shepherd Construction and hence there was no
entitlement to any extension of time.
Shepherd Construction’s
Case
Shepherd Construction argued that
they were entitled to an nine weeks extension of time for the following reasons:
- The late issue of an
Architect’s Instruction varying the gas membrane which was to be
incorporated into the substructure of the hotel.
- The late issue of an
Architect’s Instruction varying the roof cladding, from a built up system,
to a system known as Stramit Speedeck. Some of this delay was concurrent
with the gas membrane delay.
- Delay which had occurred
following the dismissal of RMJM, together with the late issue of a
significant number of instructions for variations and additional work and
late confirmation of details of the works.
With regard to clause 13.8,
Shepherd Construction argued that this clause only applied to instructions that
we liable to cause delay because of their content. It had no application to
instructions which were liable to cause delay simply because they were issued
too late to comply with its programme. In the present case it was argued that
with one exception the delays were caused by the lateness of the Architect’s
Instructions and not by the content. Shepherd Construction also asserted that
as a result of the actions of the Architect, there had been a waiver of
compliance with clause 13.8.
Lower Court Decision
In accordance with procedures in
the Scottish Courts the matter was referred to the Lord Ordinary (Lord Macfadyen).
There were various applications to Lord Macfadyen by the parties, during the
period from March 2004 and February 2006, to change their pleadings, together
with a hearing which lasted for an overall period of 29 days. At the conclusion,
Lord Macfadyen decided that Shepherd Construction was entitled to an extension
of time of 9 weeks, thus fully absolving them from any liability to pay
liquidated damages. Lord Macfadyen, with regard to the interpretation of clause
13.8, considered that it only applied to late instructions which because of
their lateness gave rise to an adjustment of the contract sum and/or an
extension of time. It did not apply to an instruction, which by its nature
would, whenever issued, have given rise to an entitlement to an adjustment to
the contract sum and /or extension of time.
·
Balfour Beatty Building Limited v Chestermount
Properties (1993)
·
Henry Boot v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Ltd
(1999)
·
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and
Others (2001)
·
John Doyle Construction Ltd v Laing Management
(Scotland) Ltd (2004)
Applying Common Sense
In arriving at a decision, it was pleasing to read in the judgement
that Lord Osborne considered, when deciding whether a relevant event had caused
delay, it should not be resolved by philosophical principles of causation, but
rather by the application of the principles of common sense. With regard to the
use of a critical path analysis, his Lordship considered that if it was soundly
based, it may be of assistance. However, the absence of such an analysis does
not mean that a claim for an extension of time must necessarily fail.
Concurrent Delays
In arriving at his decision Lord Osborne made some useful
observations concerning the term concurrent delays. He considered that the term
could relate to any one of the following situations:
·
The delays occur in a way in which they have
common features
·
The delays share a common start and finish date
·
The delays share either a common start or finish
date
·
For part of the time the delays overlap
·
The delays all had an influence upon some
subsequent event such as the completion date
Dominant Cause of
Delay
Lord Osborne was of the opinion that if a dominant cause of
delay can be identified as the cause of a particular delay to the completion of
the works, effect can be given to that by leaving out of account any cause or
causes which are not material. Depending on whether or not the dominant cause
is a relevant event, the claim for an extension of time will or will not
succeed. This approach is supported by the text book Keating on Building
Contracts. Lord Osborne however didn’t offer any explanation of what
constitutes a dominant cause of delay.
Where a situation exists in which two causes of delay occur,
one being a relevant event and the other the responsibility of the contractor,
but neither is a dominant cause, Lord Osborne considered that the claim for an
extension of time will not necessarily fail.
In arriving at this decision Lord Osborne considered the
decision in Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd (1993)
where Colman stated:
The parties agreed the following which was accepted by the
Court
“... if there are two concurrent causes of delay, one of
which is a relevant event and the other is not, then the contractor is entitled
to an extension of time for the period of delay caused by the relevant event
notwithstanding the concurrent effect of the other event”
Apportionment
It was decided in the case of John Doyle Construction Ltd v
Laing Management (Scotland) Ltd 2004 that where a global claim had been
submitted, involving a number of competing causes of loss, it was legitimate to
apportion loss between the different causes of loss in an appropriate manner.
Perhaps influenced by this decision, Lord Osborne concluded that where there s
more than one cause of delay and there is no dominant cause, in a broad sense,
it will be open to the Architect or Engineer who is making the decision, to
apportion the delay as between the relevant event and the other matter causing
delay, provided it is approached in a fair and reasonable manner. Lord Osborne
considered that Lord Macfadyen was correct in the decision he made regarding
Shepherd Construction’s entitlement to an extension of time.
Interpretation of
Clause 13.8
Lord Osborne considered that the reasoning of Lord Macfadyen
relating to the interpretation of clause 13.8 was sound. However Lord Carloway
considered that both Lord Osborne and Lord Macfadyen were wrong as their
reasoning isn’t merited by the wording of the clause. The wording of clause
13.8 appears under a heading of Variations and Provisional Sums. The clause
therefore does not deal with instructions which are merely late. Lord Carloway
considered that the rigmarole under clause 13.8 would not apply to a mere late
instruction. It applies to instructions which relate to variations. However he
considered that even if he did not agree with the reasoning of Lord Macfadyen
he accepted that his decision was correct.
Waiver
The arguments put forward on behalf of City Inn concerning
waiver were dismissed by both Lord Macfadyen and Lord Osborne.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Story of Layla / Layla and Majnun - Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla_and_Majnun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla
The title, "Layla," was inspired by The Story of Layla / Layla and Majnun (ليلى و مجنون), by the 12th-century Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi of the Ganja (prese...nt day Azerbaijan) Seljuq empire.[4] It is based on the true story of a young man called Qays ibn al-Mulawwah (Arabic: قيس بن الملوح) from the northern Arabian Peninsula, in the Umayyad Caliphate during the 7th century. When he wrote "Layla," Clapton had been told the story by his friend Ian Dallas,[3] who was in the process of converting to Islam. Nizami's tale, about a moon princess who was married off by her father to someone other than the one who was desperately in love with her, resulting in Majnun's madness (A name, مجنون, which translates to "madman" in Arabic), struck a deep chord with Clapton.See more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layla
The title, "Layla," was inspired by The Story of Layla / Layla and Majnun (ليلى و مجنون), by the 12th-century Persian poet Nizami Ganjavi of the Ganja (prese...nt day Azerbaijan) Seljuq empire.[4] It is based on the true story of a young man called Qays ibn al-Mulawwah (Arabic: قيس بن الملوح) from the northern Arabian Peninsula, in the Umayyad Caliphate during the 7th century. When he wrote "Layla," Clapton had been told the story by his friend Ian Dallas,[3] who was in the process of converting to Islam. Nizami's tale, about a moon princess who was married off by her father to someone other than the one who was desperately in love with her, resulting in Majnun's madness (A name, مجنون, which translates to "madman" in Arabic), struck a deep chord with Clapton.See more
Friday 4 May 2012
Favourite World Music (May 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDJCexCSws Homayoon Shajarian . Havaye Geryeh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veS8QBb88V0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3B8C618A06A9DED8 Farid Farjad-Dejad Gity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5px-ppcQDps&feature=player_embedded Im Nin 'alu ♥ Ofra Haza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HmdjqqjUVU0 Soltane Ghalbha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL8eQdeXD8U Ebi - Khalij Pars - Persian Gulf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hgp4eg2slE Axiom of Choice - Mystic & Fools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ow9psAcAs&feature=fvsr Haydeh - Zendegi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqirowJwdko Siavash Ghomayshi - Milad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6Ehu1VXY Devdas: Maar Dala.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qhkBTGE_Wo Devdas: Silsila Ye Chaahat Ka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izx-ZRAz9S8&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Umrao Jaan "Salaam"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmV_kWtkbPI Dola Re Dola song - Devdas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js58W5Z5Tko&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Kajra Re (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKSg4JuWIBA&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Kajra Re (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0RkPxC1XHg&feature=relmfu Madhuri Dixit - Aaja Nachle - Title Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veS8QBb88V0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL3B8C618A06A9DED8 Farid Farjad-Dejad Gity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5px-ppcQDps&feature=player_embedded Im Nin 'alu ♥ Ofra Haza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HmdjqqjUVU0 Soltane Ghalbha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL8eQdeXD8U Ebi - Khalij Pars - Persian Gulf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hgp4eg2slE Axiom of Choice - Mystic & Fools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ow9psAcAs&feature=fvsr Haydeh - Zendegi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqirowJwdko Siavash Ghomayshi - Milad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6Ehu1VXY Devdas: Maar Dala.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qhkBTGE_Wo Devdas: Silsila Ye Chaahat Ka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izx-ZRAz9S8&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Umrao Jaan "Salaam"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmV_kWtkbPI Dola Re Dola song - Devdas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js58W5Z5Tko&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Kajra Re (1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKSg4JuWIBA&feature=related Aishwarya Rai - Kajra Re (2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0RkPxC1XHg&feature=relmfu Madhuri Dixit - Aaja Nachle - Title Song
Wednesday 2 May 2012
Channel 4 TV: The Tallest Tower: Building The Shard (May 2nd 2012)
The Shard - Notes (may be errors) : Architect - Renzo Piano. Contractor: MACE.
Total Cost of Entire Project = £1.5 Billion.
More than 300m tall. Highest building in Western Europe.
4 years to build.
More than 1500 construction workers.
12,000 approx tonnes of steel frame. 50,000 approx m3 of concrete.
95 Storeys in total.
25 Floors of Offices.
22 Floors of a Hotel Complex, Spa & Restaurants.
13 Storeys of Luxury Apartments. 10s of millions of £s each.
Crowned with Steel Frame Spire. Supports a Pinnacle clad with shards of glass.
Construction Site = 5,000m2
Problem: Access restrictions. New building wedged in between adjacent buildings: Guy's Hospital (3/4 million patients a year). Other side: London Bridge Station.
Existing Office Block - 25 storeys - demolished. Demolition began May 2008. 25,000 tonnes of concrete and glass removed. Demolition floor by floor. 14,000 m3 approx of concrete and rubble removed in 1100 truck loads. At peak: 1 floor every week. Movement of soil could affect stability of adjacent buildings within 18m. Movement sensors installed on all nearby buildings. Monitored 24 hours a day. Trigger emergency alarm. Underground tunnel moved 15mm during excavation. Significant but within safe limits. Moved back 4mm after Shard completion. No disturbance to tube trains or passengers. After 8 months (Feb' 2009) excavators reach old reinforced concrete foundation 2m thick. Noise could be a disturbance to neighbours - use contained explosives to break up concrete. Use blast mats. Site clear after 14 months. 29 weeks to secure the foundations.
Site next to River Thames. Mini dam constructed to protect site and secure foundations. Fault: water seeped into dam. Fast setting grout inserted into gap to seal hole and stop water inflow. Perimeter of dam to take part of load of building. 120 Steel & Concrete piles to take main weight of building. Each pile can support 2400 tonnes. 54 m into the ground. Top of piles 13m below existing ground level. Untypical construction: Top Down Method. Unique for Core construction. Simultaneous construction. Basement & 1st 10 floors in parallel taken 4 weeks.
Largest ever continuous concrete pour in a commercial building in the UK. 36 hours. 700 truck loads of concrete. 150m3 an hour. Fans used to prevent overheating and cracking of concrete as it sets. 5500m3 of concrete poured.
Issues with use of cranes. At certain height used crane internally through lift shaft. Only one suspended in this way.
March 2011 - 50th Floor (180m above ground) - Difficult environmental conditions. High winds (41m per hour). Winds harder and colder (freezing). Construction continuous 24hrs a day.
11,000 tripled glazed panels, 3.5m x 1.5m wide, 300kg each. High risk at higher levels. Floor 35 = 143 panels, 6men took 71 hours to install. Toughened glass encased in aluminium.
Shield installed at high level to protect building during work.
12 hours for concrete floor slab to harden to walk on.
Hoists slow. High speed `Jump' lift system in core for transporting materials etc.
Engineers reduce sway of building. Hat truss controls movement.
Spire = 23 storey steel section. Steel girders.
12th September 2011. Steel starts arriving on site for the Spire. 100 lorries.
310m.
The Shard will redefine London Skyline.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=694
Total Cost of Entire Project = £1.5 Billion.
More than 300m tall. Highest building in Western Europe.
4 years to build.
More than 1500 construction workers.
12,000 approx tonnes of steel frame. 50,000 approx m3 of concrete.
95 Storeys in total.
25 Floors of Offices.
22 Floors of a Hotel Complex, Spa & Restaurants.
13 Storeys of Luxury Apartments. 10s of millions of £s each.
Crowned with Steel Frame Spire. Supports a Pinnacle clad with shards of glass.
Construction Site = 5,000m2
Problem: Access restrictions. New building wedged in between adjacent buildings: Guy's Hospital (3/4 million patients a year). Other side: London Bridge Station.
Existing Office Block - 25 storeys - demolished. Demolition began May 2008. 25,000 tonnes of concrete and glass removed. Demolition floor by floor. 14,000 m3 approx of concrete and rubble removed in 1100 truck loads. At peak: 1 floor every week. Movement of soil could affect stability of adjacent buildings within 18m. Movement sensors installed on all nearby buildings. Monitored 24 hours a day. Trigger emergency alarm. Underground tunnel moved 15mm during excavation. Significant but within safe limits. Moved back 4mm after Shard completion. No disturbance to tube trains or passengers. After 8 months (Feb' 2009) excavators reach old reinforced concrete foundation 2m thick. Noise could be a disturbance to neighbours - use contained explosives to break up concrete. Use blast mats. Site clear after 14 months. 29 weeks to secure the foundations.
Site next to River Thames. Mini dam constructed to protect site and secure foundations. Fault: water seeped into dam. Fast setting grout inserted into gap to seal hole and stop water inflow. Perimeter of dam to take part of load of building. 120 Steel & Concrete piles to take main weight of building. Each pile can support 2400 tonnes. 54 m into the ground. Top of piles 13m below existing ground level. Untypical construction: Top Down Method. Unique for Core construction. Simultaneous construction. Basement & 1st 10 floors in parallel taken 4 weeks.
Largest ever continuous concrete pour in a commercial building in the UK. 36 hours. 700 truck loads of concrete. 150m3 an hour. Fans used to prevent overheating and cracking of concrete as it sets. 5500m3 of concrete poured.
Issues with use of cranes. At certain height used crane internally through lift shaft. Only one suspended in this way.
March 2011 - 50th Floor (180m above ground) - Difficult environmental conditions. High winds (41m per hour). Winds harder and colder (freezing). Construction continuous 24hrs a day.
11,000 tripled glazed panels, 3.5m x 1.5m wide, 300kg each. High risk at higher levels. Floor 35 = 143 panels, 6men took 71 hours to install. Toughened glass encased in aluminium.
Shield installed at high level to protect building during work.
12 hours for concrete floor slab to harden to walk on.
Hoists slow. High speed `Jump' lift system in core for transporting materials etc.
Engineers reduce sway of building. Hat truss controls movement.
Spire = 23 storey steel section. Steel girders.
12th September 2011. Steel starts arriving on site for the Spire. 100 lorries.
310m.
The Shard will redefine London Skyline.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=694
Favourite Songs & Music (May 2012)
1. Miserere mei, Deus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcWo1hKHu40
2. Khalij Fars http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL8eQdeXD8U
3. Kajra Re http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKSg4JuWIBA
4. Mystics & Fools http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hgp4eg2slE
5. Dejad Gity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veS8QBb88V0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLB92D21D433BD1F4B
6. Hallelujah - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIF4_Sm-rgQ
7. Eleanor Rigby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dsz4dB6DuM
8. Kashmir http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfR_HWMzgyc
9. Sound of Silence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvsX03LOMhI
10. Glory Box http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-GvT8Clnk
Is Britain Dumbing Down ?
Contrary to the opinion of many, Britain is not dumbing down. In fact, the opposite is the truth, standards are rising. Why do people have these distorted views ? Insecurity and envy probably explains why. The younger generation and others studying in Britain today are attaining better qualifications and higher grades. There are good reasons for this: better access to information (we are in the information age); better technology; the removal of bad teachers (well done OFSTED) and increased enthusiasm for learning.
We have almost reached a point whereby an honours degree is the minimum higher level qualification required by employers. It is likely that, in future, a Masters degree or Professional qualification will be the minimum requirement for professionals and these qualifications will distinguish between the best and the average.
I am in the 45-50 age range. The generation before us had less distractions than my generation so more time for studying and reading books. On the other hand, the younger (or next) generation have better access to information but also more distractions to lure them away from studying. My generation was (and is) in the middle; we did not have computers or the internet - the personal computer did not become a common household or workplace item until the mid-late 1990s and the internet only really became useful in the last decade (post 2000). The reality is that each generation has had advantages and disadvantages.
Be proud of the young and accept their and Britain's rising standards. Meet the challenge - it is never too late to improve yourself (subject to financial limitations).
We have almost reached a point whereby an honours degree is the minimum higher level qualification required by employers. It is likely that, in future, a Masters degree or Professional qualification will be the minimum requirement for professionals and these qualifications will distinguish between the best and the average.
I am in the 45-50 age range. The generation before us had less distractions than my generation so more time for studying and reading books. On the other hand, the younger (or next) generation have better access to information but also more distractions to lure them away from studying. My generation was (and is) in the middle; we did not have computers or the internet - the personal computer did not become a common household or workplace item until the mid-late 1990s and the internet only really became useful in the last decade (post 2000). The reality is that each generation has had advantages and disadvantages.
Be proud of the young and accept their and Britain's rising standards. Meet the challenge - it is never too late to improve yourself (subject to financial limitations).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)