It was interesting to read the letters in response to Tony Bingham鈥檚 article (3 July, page 28)

In one, James Golden says: 鈥淭he widespread adoption of a single, good (if not perfect) form of contract can only be a good thing for everyone except those of us that thrive on disputes.鈥�

A suite of contracts had been developed by the industry and its clients before NEC ever emerged 鈥� it was called the JCT. Why promote another contract at great cost to the industry when there is no knowledge of the contract, and so it does not matter which you use? The answer does, of course, lie in sound training, which should mean maintaining the JCT suite as it has the support of industry and client organisations and continues to be the most widely used.

It seems that all the resources used by government and others in trying to impose another suite would have been better directed to the administration of what we already have. Unfortunately, there seems too much vested interest in the change agenda. We must change to improve, not to confuse. So let us update our knowledge of JCT rather than waste resources on learning from scratch.

Francis Ives, chairman, Cyril Sweett

Topics