A paper based on a first prize entry in the Hudson Prize essay competition 2009 presented to a meeting of the Society of Construction Law in London on 18th May 2010.
When a construction party wants to make a claim for money and/or time, how far can they rely on the court accepting that the other party is in breach of an implied term requiring co-operation (or the absence of hindrance)? Aidan Steensma's paper, which shared first prize in the SCL's Hudson essay competition 2009, looks in detail at the process by which courts imply versions of such terms into construction contracts and their different approaches and justifications for doing so. He argues that keeping a clear head on the different types of implied term allows better sense to be made of the apparently conflicting caselaw in the field, which the paper also summarises and analyses.
Introduction - The authorities - The basis for implying terms - 'Regular and orderly' performance? - Strict liability? - Conclusions.
The author: Aidan Steensma is a solicitor with CMS Cameron McKenna LLP.
Text 14 pages.