Builder, client, designer contract issue

[dg]

A designer prepared some plans, and the client employed a builder to do the work.

The builder put a floor in at an incorrect height. On the plans there were specific details relating to certain parts of the work - not specifically the floor, but other items. But these were standard or typical details, and whilst a floor was indicated it was only showed for completeness, and not for building to.

Other parts of the drawing showed the floor in a different place, and text mentioned the need for the builder to notify discrepencies prior to building, and to follow existing levels.

Rather than use his expertise, measure the floor position, or check other parts of the drawing and notify the discrepancies the builder followed what he thought to be the correct drawing and put a floor in at the wrong height.

In the builders view he "followed the drawing".

The designer says he did not follow the drawing, but misread it.

The client believes that he is 'in the middle' and believes the builder and designer should sort the problem out between them - ie someone has to pay for remedial work.

But do the designer and builder have any relationship so that one may claim from the other? Or is it down to one to claim from the client and the client then claim from the other?

dg

[Terry W.]

dg wrote in news:1184890607.872241.27220@

22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

I would strongly suggest you go to uk.legal.moderated for advice on this question.

Terry W.

[nightjar]

The answer will be in your coursework notes.

Colin Bignell

[dom]

Unless they made a contract with each other - no. You have 2 separate contracts. You (or your legal adviser) must decide which, if either, is in breach.

Or you can accept that mistakes happen in all professions, and that you the customer should accept this if it is part of an otherwise good service.

[dg]

I've looked up in the loft, but it has been about 15 years since I covered this at uni, and could not find anything

dg

[dg]

That was my initial thought, in that contractural relations exist only between the client/builder and client/designer.

I just wondered if there was any precedent in which a duty is owed directly between the builder and designer, which could allow claims between them.

dg

[Anthony R. Gold]

Why must they decide? They can bring a claim against both and let a court decide any allocation. And the act of bringing the action will serve to concentrate the minds of the builder, the designer (and in particular any insurance carriers involved) and may result in a useful settlement offer.

The essential issue that the client must analyse is his likely level of damage. Just because the floor is not where the designer chose it to go is not itself proof of damage. That will revolve around whether the value of the structure is less than it would have been if the designer's true intentions had been realised and it may require an expert's opinion.

Tony

[Cynic]

IANAL. From a common-sense POV (which I realise may not have anything to do with the legal position), I should think that the client would have a claim over either or both the builder & architect if, and only if it could be shown that they were negligent.

I would expect a builder to spot any obvious problem with the work he is carrying out, and not to proceed with anything that his experience and expertise indicates might be a problem, and would have a duty of care toward his client to question such things rather than blindly follow a drawing.

I would similarly expect an architect to double-check that drawings are correct and consistent.

It could be, however, that the drawings were correct but ambiguous in a way that the architect was not negligent by not realising it, and the the builder interpreted them in a way that was neither unreasonable, nor would it be expected to cause the builder to see that something was amiss before the damage was done and rectification required.

Perhaps the client should have required (and paid for) the architect to visit the construction site before each key stage of the construction to verify that the previous stage had been completed correctly, and that pegs or other markers relating to the next stage of construction were in the correct positions - and sign to state that he had checked and approved. Perhaps an architect who does not

*insist* on doing that could be regarded as being negligent?

Additional excavating and re-marking etc. is trivial and inexpensive. Once the concrete has been poured, recification of a mistake becomes expensive and time consuming.

[TMC]

Your post is about as ambiguous as the plans appear to be

'a designer prepared some plans' who commissioned him the client or the builder?

For designer should we assume architect (that is some one whose level of skill and expertise should be sufficient to produce adequate plans and against whom action could be taken if they were not so) or some other person who created an impression of the finished project and who could not be held responsible for an absence of detail or structural deficiencies?

You say that the height of a floor was incorrect But then say it was not specifically referred to

You say that a floor (presumably an existing one as it was not to be built to) was only shown for completeness and not for building to then you say that the text said to follow existing levels

You then say that other parts of the drawing show the floor in a different place Is that the same as a different height? Does this refer to an existing floor or the incorrectly built one?

What has the client done or failed to do that any one would want claim from him?

In answer to your question there is no contractual relationship between the designer and the builder

However to the nub.......

What do you estimate to be the cost of rectifying the problem?

Has the designer been paid yet?

Has the builder been paid yet?

is work continuing or is the project currently suspended?

These are important considerations in deciding who takes the legal action if it is indeed necessary

Tony