Dr Sarita Woolhouse

Statistical analysis of the ten years' cases under the English Arbitration Act 1996

Is a design and build contractor impliedly obliged to execute work that is fit for its intended purpose or simply to use reasonable skill and care? Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 does not support the higher obligation of the two. Section 16(3) of the Act does expressly state that nothing in the Act would prejudice any rule of law imposing a higher duty than the one to use reasonable skill and care. Such a higher duty must be found in an existing rule of law. This article examines the case law including the IBA case, to conclude that there is no clear and consistent precedent to imply a generic obligation of fitness for purpose in every design and build contract. The IBA appears to be focused on the design of the goods supplied by a subcontractor. The starting point for design and build services must be limited to the obligation contained in section 13. Each case should then be examined on its own facts and circumstances, and only if the common law principles of implying a higher standard of work into a contract are fulfilled, should a design and build contractor be under an implied obligation that is higher than that of using reasonable skill and care.

Re Dabhol power project, India

Centering children of colour in the climate justice framework