In Multiplex Construction (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited [2008] it was held that “A variation clause entitles the employer to omit work which he no longer requires. Absent
specific provision to that effect, a variation clause does not entitle the employer to omit work for the purpose of giving it to another contractor”. See also Abbey Developments Ltd v PP Brickwork Ltd, [2003] TCC.
I have not spent a great deal of time working with NEC 3 and don't particularly like the form of contract. However, have regard to Clause 34, 90.2 and Clause 92.1. An employer may not be able to omit the works in order to have them done by another contractor but might be able to use the suspension and termination provisions to achieve the same result.
Member for
16 years 1 monthHi Tony,I agree with Mike.In
Hi Tony,
I agree with Mike.
In Multiplex Construction (UK) Limited v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited and Cleveland Bridge Dorman Long Engineering Limited [2008] it was held that “A variation clause entitles the employer to omit work which he no longer requires. Absent
specific provision to that effect, a variation clause does not entitle the employer to omit work for the purpose of giving it to another contractor”. See also Abbey Developments Ltd v PP Brickwork Ltd, [2003] TCC.
I have not spent a great deal of time working with NEC 3 and don't particularly like the form of contract. However, have regard to Clause 34, 90.2 and Clause 92.1. An employer may not be able to omit the works in order to have them done by another contractor but might be able to use the suspension and termination provisions to achieve the same result.
Andrew
Member for
19 years 10 monthsHi Tony Its not in any
Hi Tony
Its not in any contract but is in common law or equity.
Look it up in Hudson's or google Atkinson Law website and use their "Knowledge Base" link.
Best regards
Mike Testro