img(height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=2939831959404383&ev=PageView&noscript=1")

Faults of omission

Omission clauses don’t always let you take works out of a contract

Client variations are a common feature of construction projects. Clients frequently change their minds about design and often instruct further works under their building contracts. What happens however where a client wishes to take work away from its contractor? Are there any limitations on the nature and scope of omissions the client can instruct under its building contract?

There is no right under common law for a client to vary the scope of works under a contract (whether by addition, variation or omission) without the contractor’s consent.  The contract must therefore include an express right for the client to omit works if it wishes to do so without the contractor’s consent.

Most building contracts (including the JCT suite) expressly entitle the client to instruct variations to the works, including omissions.  The extent to which the courts will permit a client to omit works will however depend on the precise wording of the contract and the particular facts of the case.

The general approach of the courts has been that, once appointed, a contractor should be entitled to complete the works in their entirety and that it will take clear words to displace this presumption. While the cases are drafting and fact specific, the courts are wary of clients looking to use omissions clauses to take away from the contractor the whole or a substantial part of the works. 

Bargain hunting forbidden

In the leading case of Abbey Developments  v PP Brickwork, the judge held that: ‘…the basic bargain struck between the employer and the contractor has to be honoured and an employer who finds that it has entered into what he might regard as a bad bargain is not allowed to escape from it by the use of the omissions clause so as to enable it then to try and get a better bargain by having the work done by somebody else’.

The courts are wary of clients looking to use omissions clauses to take away from the contractor the whole or a substantial part of the works

However, the judge went on to say that if the wording of the contract is sufficiently clear, an omission may not amount to a breach of contract. The answer will depend on the breadth of the drafting of the omissions clause and whether the omission is consistent with the intention of the clause. 

Where a client omits works in breach of its contractual rights, the courts are likely to hold the client liable for loss of profit on the works which have been unlawfully omitted under the contract. If the unlawful omission is significant enough, this may amount to a repudiatory breach of contract (see in plain English section).

The messages to take home are that, first, if the client wishes to omit works under its contract, it will need an express right to do so in its contract; secondly that the client must not abuse the purpose of the omission clause; thirdly that if the client wishes to reserve the right to omit works and award these to a third party contractor, it must have a clear right to do so under the contract; and lastly that if the client does not want to be liable for loss of profit on omitted elements, this also needs to be clearly stated. 

The greater the scale of the proposed omission though, the greater the risk of this being challenged by the contractor on the basis that the omission defeats the basic bargain between the client and the contractor. In short, take care when looking to omit works and always be sure to check the terms of the building contract.


IN PLAIN ENGLISH – REPUDIATION

A party to a contract is deemed to be in repudiatory breach if it shows its intention no longer to be bound by the terms of the contract. A party may be held to be in repudiatory breach, for example, if it abandons or walks away from the contract. In the context of omission of works, if the client unlawfully omits some or all of the works from the contract, the contractor may be able to argue that the client is showing an intention no longer to be bound by the terms of the contract as it is essentially taking the works away from the contractor.  

The occurrence of the repudiatory breach does not itself terminate the contract, the innocent party has to accept the repudiation.  If a repudiatory breach is accepted, both parties are discharged from any further obligations under the contract and the innocent party can claim damages, including loss of profit.

Latest

Anna Heringer loves mud, and has won some big prizes for her rammed earth designs. For her, architecture is not just a building but a route to human development

Earth is the German architect’s route to human development

Court backs Zaha's executors to hold ZHA principal Schumacher in check as he continues to voice views at odds with the industry. Meanwhile the profession demands greater emphasis on building in PM's 'green industrial revolution', and Grenfell Inquiry is told Celotex manipulated fire test results

Plus Grenfell shock claim, ‘Festival of Brexit’, and hit built environment emissions, industry tells PM

Made from a majority of natural fibres, Trespa's premium facade solution is designed for longevity, simplicity and aesthetic appeal - it performs technically too

Made from natural fibres, Trespa's facade solution is long lasting and attractive

Made from phyllite metamorphic rock, Riverstone has an attractive silky appearance and strength that makes it suitable for multiple architectural uses

An extremely rare metamorphic rock, Riverstone is prized for its strength and beauty for all uses

It’s panto time and Russian architect Vladimir Somov’s nutty but run-down 1987 Dostoevsky Drama Theatre in Veliky Novgorod is in line for a revamp. The competition for the job is being curated by Haworth Tompkins director Roger Watts. RIBAJ asks him what’s behind it

What is the Haworth Tompkins director doing with Vladimir Somov's run-down theatre?