- 07 August 2017
- Construction
Are your contractual design obligations fit for purpose?
The Supreme Court ruling in Mt Højgaard v E.On last week held that a “fitness for purpose” obligation in a schedule to a construction contract should be given its natural meaning and effect, so confirming an earlier decision of the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) that there was a fitness for purpose obligation which required the contractor to produce foundations which would last for 20 years. Separately, in July another TCC decision in 125 OBS (Nominees 1) Ltd v Lend Lease Construction (Europe) Ltd concerning the relationship between general and specific design obligation in a specification held that...