Assignment One
Construction Law and Ethics
Question 1
The construction industry is normally faced with claims that arise from payment delays, total bills, maintenance deposit, and deductions and so on. From the presented case it is clear that WAR holds several claims against Design king corporation. This is very obvious that the mistake was done by the design that provided the wrong details. The first claim is the change claim mainly because as the subcontractor it was forced to perform some specifications revisions which led to the transformation of its work scope as well as the mode of accomplishing its tasks. The change in design resulted in the increase in the amount of work for WAR. This, therefore, required the subcontractor to utilize more resources thus incurring an increased cost from what had been designed before. The second claim that WAR holds against the company is delay claims. Due to the increment in the amount of work based on the changes of the scope, this necessitated the subcontractor to utilize more time than required in completing the project (Hewitt, 2011). More time requires more resources and cost. The another claim is the extra work claim. The subcontractor was required to do more work than what was required before when the project was being assigned. Extra work implies that there is additional work that the subcontractor had to engage in which was not included before in the contract (Hewitt, 2011). The last claim is the contractual claim which mainly concerns the matters of the general contract. The contract differs from the resources and operations provided by the subcontractor because he had to incur extra costs. This generates a difference in pricing as well as evaluation.
Question 2
WAR holds intent, practice and policy argument against the corporation. This is mainly because based on the design of the project it is clear that the designer was wrong in the provision of wrong details. Based on the construction policy the subcontractor has the right to claim for additional payment based on the utilized additional resources and efforts in the projects. This, therefore, required the utilization of more time to complete the project (Kelleher, Walters, & Smith, Currie & Hancock, 2009). The extra work that the subcontractor performed was not indicated in the contractor which raises the argument that more cost is necessitated.
Question 3
In order to verify the claim from WAR, the company requires a record of the materials utilized in completing the projects including the time period. In addition, the prove that the given design was not accurate should be provided to ensure that the claim of extra work and scope and specification changes occurred is real. In addition, the general cost of materials should be indicated and the extra cost indicated with the adequate justification of spending indicated (Kelleher, Walters, & Smith, Currie & Hancock, 2009). This would help in justifying the extra work and changes of operations.
Question 4
The company as the contractor has to make its claims from the owner of the project with adequate justifications to prove that the design details of the project were wrongly drawn. This will, therefore, help in regaining all the extra cost that is being claimed by the subcontractor. The claim cannot be made to the designer as there the connection of the project existed completely with the project owner (Kelleher, Walters, & Smith, Currie & Hancock, 2009). The claims that the corporation has includes, measuring and pricing, contractual, scope and specification changes and extra task. This is, therefore, the responsible party that can consult these claims with the designer to gain evidence of the whole matter.
References
Hewitt, A. (2011). Construction claims & responses: Effective writing & presentation. Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kelleher, T. J., Walters, G. S., & Smith, Currie & Hancock. (2009). Smith, Currie & Hancock's common sense construction law: A practical guide for the construction professional. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons.
Assignment Two
Construction Law and Ethics
Question 1
Based on the case it is clear that the design report details were drawn wrongly. It is normal for the construction contract to experience claims which are based on delays, a payment the cost of maintenance and so on. From the case, WAR holds several types of claims against DesignKing Company. The first claim is based on scope and specifications changes. The contract aspects differed from the specification that was provided by the actual project (Thomas, 2016). This is because the design details as established by the subcontractor were not correct. This, therefore, required the subcontractor to perform extra tasks. This raised another claim referred to as extra task claim. This implies that the tasks that were done in the project were completely different from what was indicated in the contract. The contractual and pricing claim is another type of claim that WAR has against the company. Due to measuring issues, the subcontractor was forced to utilize more resources and extra effort in the project. A measuring claim is also applicable in the case because the designer of the project provided the wrong details to the project thus resulting in operations changes. With changes in operation the subcontractor is required to work more (Thomas, 2016).
Question 2
WAR numerous factual and legal argument of making the claims. First, the construction law requires the work to be accomplished based on the contractor that has been signed between the involved parties. This, therefore, implies that since the subcontractor did extra work extra payment claims are valid. On the other and the contract did not indicate that the subcontractor would be involved in additional tasks or would incur extra cost and utilize more time in completing the project (Thomas, 2016). It was additionally not the mistake of the subcontractor that the design that was provided was wrong. The specifications were drawn wrongly which thus necessitated the subcontractor to utilize more than anticipated before beginning the project.
Question 3
Apart from the direct cost of labor report that was provided by the subcontractor materials and time period report utilized in completing the project is highly necessary. This will help in illustrating the extra cost that the subcontractor incurred. In addition, the specific measurements of the projects aspects which differ to those drawn by the designer should be provided. This will help in making an estimation of the extra coat and tasks that the subcontractor incurred as a result of the design measurements reports that were given by the designer (Callahan, 2005). The contractor should thus provide the general cost of the project and a comparison of what anticipated. This will help in justification of the extra cost that was developed.
Question 4
The DesignKing Company should directly claim the extra cost from the project owners as the employer. This is mainly because despite the fact that the designer is the one who made a mistake in providing wrong measurements the designer and the company holds no association (Callahan, 2005). By claiming the extra cost from the owner the company might be able to regain the extra coat that is being claimed by WAR. It is thus clear that the designer made a mistake and this can only be resolved directly by the project owner who had hired the designer and the company. The specific claims that the company has includes, measurement, change, pricing and contractual as well as an extra job. This is mainly because the mistake of providing the wrong measurements resulted in additional work, time as well as additional resources.
References
Callahan, M. T. (2005). Construction change order claims. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Thomas, R. W. (2016). Construction Contract Claims. Palgrave Macmillan.
