Write a Report

Closed Posted Feb 24, 2015 Paid on delivery
Closed Paid on delivery

Coursework Element

Assessment Brief

Submission Deadline: by 16:00 hrs on Friday 20 March 2015

________________________________________________________________

1. TASK

Boyle Construction Limited (“Boyle”),

submitted a tender to Latika Leisure Limited (“Latika”) for the refurbishment and final clean of the former Victoria Swimming Baths in Manchester (“the Works”) on 19 December 2014.

Restoration of the Victoria Swimming Baths had been long overdue but following negotiations with a Bollywood film company it looked as though the refurbishment now had funding in place. The filming of a new Bollywood blockbuster titled “Plumbdog Millionaire” was due to start at the newly refurbished Victoria Swimming Baths on 17 March 2015 and a fee had been agreed by Latika with the film production company of USD 5,000 per day for 10 days.

Following a tender evaluation process over the Christmas period, Latika advised Boyle that their tender was likely to be accepted subject to Latika getting finance in place.

Boyle commenced the Works on receipt of a letter of intent dated 5 January 2015 from Latika which stated:

“It is our intention to enter into a contract with Boyle for the refurbishment and final clean of the former Victoria Swimming Baths. The refurbishment is to commence immediately and the guaranteed completion date is 16 March 2015. You will be paid on a cost plus basis with a reasonable allowance for overheads and profit”

On 22 January 2015 the mechanical & electrical subcontractor Jamal (“Jamal”) un covered material in the basement of the site which appeared to be asbestos.

Boyle’s construction manager immediately suspended work in the affected areas of the site and requested an instruction from Latika who issued a written instruction requiring Boyle to immediately arrange tests on the suspect material and to then “…remove all asbestos containing material in order that the Works can be completed…”

At the request of Boyle a specialist asbestos removal subcontractor, Salim Insulation Limited (“Salim”) attended site and confirmed that the suspect material contained asbestos fibres. Salim advised Boyle that they could commence work immediately but, due to the character of the work, would only be willing to carry out the safe removal of the asbestos for Boyle on a day works basis. Boyle agreed with Salim regarding the character of the asbestos removal work and Salim began stripping out the asbestos on 29 January 2015.

On 27 February 2015 a JCT 2011 Standard Building Contract With Quantities (SBC/Q) form of contract (“the Contract”)was signed by Boyle and Latika in respect of the Works.

Incorporated into the Contract Documents was an Asbestos Containing Material Survey (“Asbestos Survey”) which confirmed that whilst asbestos had been identified in elements of the existing structure, all asbestos had been eliminated and the Site was certified as being “fit for reoccupation”.

Included in the Contract Particulars was a Date for Completion of 16 March 2015 and the following statement relating to liquidated damages:

“...liquidated damages are USD 6,750 per day for the first 10 days and USD 1,750 for every subsequent day thereafter…”

On 2 March 2015 Boyle gave notice to the Contract Administrator requesting an extension of time and payment of loss and expense.

By the time the remaining asbestos containing material had been safely removed on 28 February 2015 a critical path delay to the Date for Completion of 10 days had occurred.

At a subsequent site valuation the Contractor’s graduate quantity surveyor included an item under the Variation section for the removal of the asbestos based upon day work sheets signed by the Clerk of Works.

The Quantity Surveyor rejected the valuation of the asbestos removal on the basis of dayworks and referred to a clause contained in the Preliminaries section of the Bill Of Quantities which stated:

“…No work will be valued on a daywork basis unless prior written notice of the commencement of daywork is given to the Contract Administrator…”

The Quantity Surveyor quite rightly pointed out that whilst notice in relation to extensions of time and loss and expense were submitted by Boyle no such notice relating to dayworks was given by Boyle.

Boyle received a letter from the Contract Administrator dated 27 March 2015 responding to Boyle’s request for an extension of time and loss and expense in relation to the asbestos issue which stated.

“…I refer to your requests for an extension of time and loss and expense relating to the discovery of asbestos. Whilst I am sympathetic to your predicament, I have been informed by the Employer’s commercial director that you were fully aware at the time of entering into the Contract that there was asbestos in the basement. I have therefore been advised by the Employer that you accepted the time and money risk associated with this problem when you signed the Contract.

In the circumstances I am left with no alternative but to reject your requests for an extension of time and loss and expense.

Accordingly, as the Works achieved practical completion 10 days after the Date for Completion and there were no other delays to the Works, I have agreed that the Employer should deduct liquidated damages in the sum of USD 67,500 from your final payment…”

Boyle has now discovered that Latika never entered into an agreement with regards to filming of “Plumbdog Millionaire” and Latika was advised that production of the film was cancelled on 13 March 2015.

You are required to prepare a report based upon the facts as at 20 March 2015 of 2,500 words in length (the word count excludes references, bibliography and a cover sheet) which provides advice to Boyle in relation to the contractual position with regard to the following:

a) Whether Boyle is entitled to be paid additional monies in respect of the removal of the asbestos and, if so, what the basis of the valuation should be.

b) Whether in principle Boyle is entitled to an adjustment of the Completion Date and to payment for loss and expense in respect of the discovery of asbestos.

c) Whether the Contract Administrator’s response to the request for an extension of time and loss and expense is correct.

d) What the position is with regard to the proposed deduction of liquidated damages should an extension of time not be due.

All sections (a) – (d) above carry equal weighting in the overall mark.

Your advice should be fully supported by reference to relevant provisions of JCT 2011 SBC/Q together with relevant cases and any authorities in statute which should all be cited and referenced in accordance with the Harvard (APA 6th) style of referencing.

Please also include separate listsof all cases and / or statutes (if any)referred to in alphabetical order.

Whilst every effort has been taken to make the technical aspects of the problem plausible, it is possible that you may believe as a result of your own personal expertise and knowledge that the given scenario is unrealistic. Such beliefs are irrelevant to this assignment and you must address the scenario as set out above.

You should not consider the implications of the legislation relating to the control of asbestos.

The coursework will be assessed according to the following 6 criteria:

1. Brevity and clarity of writing style and structure.

2. Conformity with accepted conventions for spelling, punctuation, grammar, citation and referencing.

3. Depth of understanding of relevant legal concepts.

4. Extent of knowledge and understanding gained from the student’s own reading.

5. Ability to apply legal concepts to the facts of the case study.

6. Ability to develop an argument supported by relevant evidence.

Each of the above criteria carry equal weighting in the overall mark.

70% and above (A)

 Argument well developed, methodically structured, efficiently expressed and very clear.

 Relevant evidence or authority correctly identified, cited and integrated.

 Clear evidence of deep understanding of relevant legal concepts, appropriately contextualised and applied.

 Relevant legal concepts clearly articulated, contextualised and applied.

 Legal issues arising from factual scenario appropriately identified, selected and applied.

 Persuasive application of relevant legal concepts to factual scenario.

 Submission critically and originally situated in the wider context of practice.

Intended Learning Outcomes Addressed In This Assessment

Knowledge And Understanding:

On successful completion of this coursework students will be able to:

 Demonstrate a theoretical and practical understanding of the reasons why disputes arise in the construction industry, and the various mechanisms for avoiding and resolving them.

 Explain the various principles of substantive law which are relevant to disputes in the construction industry.

 Demonstrate an understanding of how these legal principles influence professional practice within the industry.

 Apply relevant principles of law to a range of problem scenarios and provide articulate and logical solutions.

 Critically evaluate the appropriateness of current professional practice in the context of relevant legal rules and identify areas requiring reform.

Transferable/Key Skills And Other Attributes:

On completion of this coursework students will have had the opportunity to:

 Become a confident, independent learner.

 Develop further competence in the use of a range of legal (and sometimes non-legal) research sources, in both paper and electronic format.

 Demonstrate the ability to communicate, in writing, in a professional, ethical and unambiguous fashion.

 Appreciate the broader context, legal, economic and social, within which disputes arise.

 Solve practical problems through the application of authoritative rules of law, both substantive and procedural, with an awareness of the relationship with other areas of law.

 Evaluate and criticise the considered opinions of others in an ethical and measured way.

Report Writing

Project ID: #7196780

About the project

5 proposals Remote project Active Apr 2, 2015

5 freelancers are bidding on average $91 for this job

ameenulhaq66

A proposal has not yet been provided

$126 USD in 3 days
(117 Reviews)
6.3
Mairas

Hi There I would love to work on your project. My work will be original and well researched. It will be delivered to you on time. Can provide you samples of my work if the need be. Looking forward to your positive res More

$54 USD in 5 days
(69 Reviews)
6.0
patmu

Regards, I am an academic researcher with top notch writing skills. I am familiar with construction legal issues such as contracts.I always do original work, which has extensive research and has references appropriatel More

$88 USD in 5 days
(83 Reviews)
5.6
BestContentTeam

A proposal has not yet been provided

$100 USD in 7 days
(69 Reviews)
5.4
emiliatech

Hello Sir We have gone through the report completely and will complete the project within the deadline. We do Academic Writing, Technical Writing, Product description, Wikipedia Writing, Ghost Writing, Article and b More

$48 USD in 1 day
(35 Reviews)
4.9
tonywaigi

Dear Sir/Madam, Hello, I am offering you the best of the best quality writing services. This I offer according to your budget with around the clock customer service support. Do you have an urgent project? Are you stu More

$85 USD in 1 day
(49 Reviews)
4.6
DRIsaac

I am well versed in content and academic writing. I have a unique skill in research and all the appropriate formatting styles/methods. My freelancing approach is to put the interests of all my clients first with an aim More

$90 USD in 1 day
(27 Reviews)
4.2