好色先生TV

There, I knew it all along. JCT98 is as plain as a judge鈥檚 pikestaff. Said the Lord Justice of Appeal: 鈥淚n my view, the machinery provided by the contract is clear and straightforward, and produces a workable and commercial scheme.鈥� Two more Court of Appeal judges sitting alongside said: 鈥淚 agree.鈥�

Trouble is, I have the feeling that if, instead of asking three tip-top judges, you asked three tip-top builders (or 30 or 300), they鈥檇 say: 鈥淏ugger, I can鈥檛 make head nor tail of what these documents do, or say, or intend.鈥�

And as much as I love to bits all the form makers at JCT and even at NEC, we really ought to scrap the lot. Start afresh. We might even get the new prime minister to spread his tentacles of 鈥渃hange鈥� into these over-complicated so-called standard forms.

And yet, appeal judges find them straightforward. I wonder if they would find plastering complicated?

The Court of Appeal on 21 June explained a building case called Reinwood vs L Brown & Sons. It鈥檚 easy to understand. Brown, the builder, became peeved. It said the employer had underpaid and it walked. Out went the chippies, plasterers and plumbers. In came the form wranglers. Standard forms gleam and pong like a dead mackerel on the quayside in the moonlight. Now comes the arguing.

"Mr Builder I keep getting plaster in my wig"

"I'll give you a hand after i've filled our those forms."

鈥淭he form says this.鈥�

鈥淣o, no, the form says that.鈥�

The folk arguing for the employer, Reinwood, said it had not underpaid. If that was correct, the builder was not only wrong to walk, but it would be liable for all the costs and consequences of the employer having to get another builder to complete the job. So, was it underpaid or not?

Out go the workers. In come the form wranglers. Standard forms gleam and pong like a dead mackerel in the moonlight

The amount due under JCT is what the architect certifies. But according to JCT, the amount due isn鈥檛 necessarily the amount payable. Did I hear a groan? The reason is that the employer can deduct liquidated damages from the architect鈥檚 certified sum if the contractor has failed to complete the works by the date for completion.

This was what the so-called underpayment was all about. Reinwood deducted 拢62k in liquidated damages; Brown argued that the true figure was 拢12k. The High Court judge said Brown was right. The three judges in the Court of Appeal said it was wrong, and they painstakingly explained how obvious it was.

Three ingredients are necessary to deduct liquidated damages. First, the architect must issue a certificate of non-completion. It had. Second, the employer must inform the contractor in writing of its intention to require payment of liquidated damages. It did. Third it must issue the withholding notice not later than five days before the 鈥渇inal date for payment鈥�. This was done.

Then the cheque was posted with a 拢62k deduction to account for the completion of the block of flats five weeks late.

But then the wheels came off. Just before the cheque was due, the architect quite properly wiggled the extension of time machinery in JCT and awarded another four weeks. So, instead of five weeks鈥� liquidated damages, it was now only one. Can you see why the builder complained about being underpaid? And can you see why the first judge agreed? I bet all construction folk see the force of that. I nearly called it common sense. And it is right 鈥� except for a 鈥渂ut鈥�.

The but crops up when you ask this question: what鈥檚 the score when the three ingredients are carried out but the architect trumps its certificate of non-completion by later awarding an extension of time?

The Court of Appeal said once the three ingredients were in place, particularly the employer鈥檚 withholding notice, the system had 鈥渃rystallised鈥� the right to rely on those pieces of paper.

The 拢62k deduction was not an underpayment and the builder had no room for complaint 鈥� technically. On the final date for payment, the cheque was right. Mind you, it does seem that the employer was bound to repay all but 拢12k of the 拢62k deduction.

I have not one jot of criticism of the Court of Appeal. Down here, though, we only see things as builders, plasterers, plumbers and High Court judges. Don鈥檛 you think builders鈥� forms ought to be written so that builders can understand them?