Extension Of Time Case Study

According to Cl-25.1(3)(l)&(v), Period of 40 days of delay is encountered due to late issuance of crucial information by the Engineer (STRUCT) should entitle the Contactor (FOUND) to claim EOT (Extension of Time).

According to Cl-27.1(I), Period of 40 days of delay is encountered due to late issuance of crucial information by the Engineer (STRUCT) should entitle the Contactor (FOUND) to claim direct loss & expenses due to fault by the Engineer (STRUCT).

1. The works progress is adversely affected by several typhoons and heavy rainfalls

According to Cl-25.1(3)(b)&(c), the works progress is adversely affected by several typhoons and heavy rainfalls should entitle the Contactor (FOUND) to claim EOT (Extension of Time).

2. What Architect(SMART)
The reasonableness and fairness of the EOT be decided by reference to the actual construction progress. The EOT granted may be less than the EOT claimed. For example, if the Contractor suffer only 30 days actual delay, 30 days of EOT is reasonable and fair.

3. What Contractor (FOUND) has done

The Contractor (FOUND) submits the Direct Loss and/or Expense claims bases on the entitled 90 days of extension. The claims based on 90 days of extension may exceed his direct loss and/or expense. Because under the contract the recoverable costs incurred must be “direct”, FOUND may only be entitled to direct loss and expense due to the period of 40 days of late issuance of crucial information by the Engineer (STRUCT).

4. What can the Contractor (FOUND) do

However, the Contractor (FOUND) may claim the “loss and expense” under common law due to delay caused by the adverse weather if he can prove that the earlier delay due to the fault of the engineer was the reason why in a later stage the progress was affected by adverse weather and so, had there been no earlier delay, the weather will not delay the
6. Case study on Koufos v. Czarnikow (1967)

According to Koufos v. Czarnikow (1967), the Court held that a party who breaches a contract is responsible for the damages that flow from that breach if at the time the contract was formed.

7. Analysis Summary

The Contractors (FOUND) may be entitled to recover the additional costs for the delay caused by adverse weather if they are able to show that had it not been for an earlier delay caused by the Engineer (STRUCT) they would not have been affected by the adverse weather. The premise is that the Contractor (FOUND) must be able to prove the earlier delay caused by the Engineer (STRUCT) with the effect on later delay caused by the adverse weather.
If the Contractor (FOUND) can prove the earlier delay due to late issuance of crucial information with the effect on later delay caused by the adverse weather, he can sue the Client under common law for damages, although he cannot sue the Client under contract law because adverse weather is not entitled to direct loss and/or