好色先生TV

Igave a talk the other night at a Chartered Institute of 好色先生TV meeting. Well, it was more of a chat. The topic was how to do me out of a job.

I spend all day every day deciding disputes. Sometimes I have a little whinge, (to myself, of course), about how daft these folks were to get themselves into this almighty row, to put themselves into the hands of consultant disputomaniacs, lawyers, experts, judges, arbitrators, adjudicators, mediators and me.

So my CIOB hosts and their architect, engineer and lawyer guests wanted to know how to 鈥渁void disputes鈥�. My throw-away first line was to 鈥済ive early-warning notices鈥�; I said folk simply don鈥檛 send such notices. 鈥淒ear me,鈥� says the employer鈥檚 QS during the final account row, 鈥測ou can鈥檛 make a claim for loss and expense, Mr Contractor because, er, well, you failed to send a notice as demanded in the contractual bumf.鈥� It鈥檚 a sort of gotcha argument, and it is run even though everyone knew months before that the contractor was being messed about with. So, my suggestion was to avoid a dispute by sending in those notices.

All this aggro, these basic ingredients for conflict are all about doing what the contractual bumf tells you to

Then I spotted one or two faces wrinkle, a few noses turned up, a few bottom lips drooped. It was plain that these chaps didn鈥檛 like sending 鈥渃ontractual鈥� notices. Subcontractors don鈥檛 like sending them to the main contractor. 鈥淚t puts the shutters up,鈥� said one of the CIOB folk. Another explained how it could, no would, spark a dispute; another said it destroyed the working relationship.

Think about it. You write a letter even in the most pleasant language, giving notice that you are suffering loss and expense because the architect is late issuing information, or that the drawings contain a cock-up. Think, too, about the subcontractor that writes to the main contractor鈥檚 head office complaining that his lads can鈥檛 make headway, can鈥檛 lay screeds, can鈥檛 erect steelwork, can鈥檛 install widgets because the managers put on site by the main contractor can鈥檛 organise a booze-up in a brewery. Go on, write that letter as the contract says you must and see what happens. It鈥檚 called 鈥済iving notice鈥�.

Credit: Simone Lia

鈥淲ell,鈥� says the QS at the tail end of the job, when everyone is ready to punch each other, 鈥測ou didn鈥檛 give notice.鈥� 鈥淎nd that,鈥� adds the lawyer, 鈥渋s a condition precedent.鈥� The warship is coming out of port.

The search is on to exploit a mistake so as to run a counter-claim. A game of tit-for-tat gets under way

What does the contract say? It says that if the contractor makes written application to the architect stating he has incurred, or is likely to incur, loss and expense and does so as soon as he twigs that the architect has proved himself to be as competent as a baboon then, after a helluva row, he might get a few bob compensation.

So I asked the room what warships coming out of port meant. Reprisals, that鈥檚 what. Spite descends 鈥� one鈥檚 colleagues start becoming 鈥渢he other side鈥�, the opponent. One chap reassured me: 鈥淚 never sulk when I receive a whingeing notice about loss and expense 鈥� I just make sure they regret it in the long run.鈥�

Ah, do you see that this aggro, these basic ingredients for conflict are all about obeying what the contractual bumf says you shall, must, will do 鈥� write a notice. The warship circles. The 鈥渙ther side鈥� starts looking for a mess-up, even half a mess-up by the sender of the notices. The search is on to exploit a mistake so as to run a counter-claim. A game of tit-for-tat gets under way. Duff work is listed, scheduled, complained about, as is poor progress. Then the contractor complains about the employer鈥檚 team having one head, two arms, and two legs 鈥�

The contract means well. It says please tell the other party when you think an event happens that might eventually mean money is to be shelled out. It sounds like good sense, but in real life it begins what is known as the 鈥減eace-war game鈥�. 好色先生TV a building requires co-operation, but the relationship is commercial. One side, at least, is there to make a profit. The relationship is fragile, too. It works while each party is co-operative. But if A provokes B, B will retaliate. That鈥檚 the start of the game, and the oddity is that the building contract orders A to provoke B or lose money. And eventually he does provoke B and loses more money than he could have dreamed of.