Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract

Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract

‘Lump sum’ is a commonly used term in contract since the 18th century. Although the term is widely used in the construction industry, the interpretations and position of the lump sum contract in the eyes of the law is lacking which could contribute to dispute on rights and responsibilities of contra...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mohamad Ali, Norwati
Format: Thesis
Language:English
Published: 2009
Subjects:
K Law (General)
Online Access:http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/12760/1/NorwatiMohamadAliMFAB2009.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my-utm-ep.12760
record_format uketd_dc
institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
collection UTM Institutional Repository
language English
topic K Law (General)
spellingShingle K Law (General)
Mohamad Ali, Norwati
Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
description ‘Lump sum’ is a commonly used term in contract since the 18th century. Although the term is widely used in the construction industry, the interpretations and position of the lump sum contract in the eyes of the law is lacking which could contribute to dispute on rights and responsibilities of contracting parties. Failure of contract conditions to define the term interpretations could impact the overall project implementation and completion process. As such, the objective of this research is to investigate the judicial interpretation of the term ‘lump sum’ in construction contract. In the legal textbook, the term ‘lump sum’ is interpreted as ‘fixed priced’. It is also interpreted as ‘a lump sum contract is one to complete the whole (sometimes termed as ‘entire’ or a ‘specific’ work) work for a lump sum’. Based upon PAM Contract 2006 (with quantities), ‘lump sum’ is fixed price and is not subject to remeasurement or recalculation except for provisional quantities and variations.’ The study had shown that none of the relevant cases had the judge himself given firm judicial interpretation of the term ‘lump sum’. Occasionally the term ‘lump sum contract’ is referred to as ‘entire contract’. The doctrine that a lump sum contract has to be completed in practically all respects in order to qualify the contractor to get any money at all is very out of date. Lump sum itself is subject to adjustment because the court leans against a construction of the contract which would deprive the contractor of any payment at all simply because there are some defects or omissions. Whether a contract is an entire one is a matter of construction. Clear words are needed to bring an entire contract into existence. In the absence of such words, the ordinary lump sum contract cannot be an entire contract, for the courts to construe the promise to complete as a term and not a condition.
format Thesis
qualification_level Master's degree
author Mohamad Ali, Norwati
author_facet Mohamad Ali, Norwati
author_sort Mohamad Ali, Norwati
title Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
title_short Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
title_full Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
title_fullStr Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
title_full_unstemmed Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract
title_sort judicial interpretations of the term ‘lump sum’ in construction contract
granting_institution Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment
granting_department Faculty of Built Environment
publishDate 2009
url http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/12760/1/NorwatiMohamadAliMFAB2009.pdf
_version_ 1747814955857477632
spelling my-utm-ep.127602018-06-25T08:59:43Z Judicial interpretations of the term ‘Lump Sum’ in construction contract 2009 Mohamad Ali, Norwati K Law (General) ‘Lump sum’ is a commonly used term in contract since the 18th century. Although the term is widely used in the construction industry, the interpretations and position of the lump sum contract in the eyes of the law is lacking which could contribute to dispute on rights and responsibilities of contracting parties. Failure of contract conditions to define the term interpretations could impact the overall project implementation and completion process. As such, the objective of this research is to investigate the judicial interpretation of the term ‘lump sum’ in construction contract. In the legal textbook, the term ‘lump sum’ is interpreted as ‘fixed priced’. It is also interpreted as ‘a lump sum contract is one to complete the whole (sometimes termed as ‘entire’ or a ‘specific’ work) work for a lump sum’. Based upon PAM Contract 2006 (with quantities), ‘lump sum’ is fixed price and is not subject to remeasurement or recalculation except for provisional quantities and variations.’ The study had shown that none of the relevant cases had the judge himself given firm judicial interpretation of the term ‘lump sum’. Occasionally the term ‘lump sum contract’ is referred to as ‘entire contract’. The doctrine that a lump sum contract has to be completed in practically all respects in order to qualify the contractor to get any money at all is very out of date. Lump sum itself is subject to adjustment because the court leans against a construction of the contract which would deprive the contractor of any payment at all simply because there are some defects or omissions. Whether a contract is an entire one is a matter of construction. Clear words are needed to bring an entire contract into existence. In the absence of such words, the ordinary lump sum contract cannot be an entire contract, for the courts to construe the promise to complete as a term and not a condition. 2009 Thesis http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/12760/ http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/12760/1/NorwatiMohamadAliMFAB2009.pdf application/pdf en public masters Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment Faculty of Built Environment Chow Kok Fong (2004). Law and Practice of Construction Contracts. 3rd Edition. Singapore: Sweet & Maxwell Asia. Legal Research Board (1995). Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), Contracts (Ammendment) Act 1976 (A329) & Government Contract Act 1949 (Act 120). As at 10th March 1995. Kuala Lumpur: International Law Book Services. Dato’ Visu Sinnadurai (1987). The law of Contract in Malaysia and Singapore: Cases and Commentary. 2nd Edition. Singapore: Butterworths Asia. David Barker & Colin Padfield (1992). Law. 8th Edition. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann ltd. Dennis F Turner (1971). Building Contracts: A Practical Guide. London: George Godwin Ltd. Donald Keating (1969). Law and Practice London: Sweet & Maxwell. of Building Contracts. 3rd Edition. K. Gajria (1999). Law Relating to Building and Engineering Contracts in India. 4th Edition. India: Butterworths. Henry Henkin (1988). Drafting Engineering Contracts. England: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd. Hudsons’ (2004). Building And Engineering Contracts. 11th Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell. John Murdoch & Will Hughes (1998). Construction Contract (Law and Management). 2nd Edition. London: Taylor & Francis. John Murdoch & Will Hughes (2008). Construction Contract. 2nd Edition. London: Taylor & Francis. Joseph Chitty (1968). Chitty on Contracts: Volume 1. 23rd Edition. UK: Sweet & Maxwell L.B. Curzon (2003). Dictionary of Law. 6th Edition. Malaysia: International Law Book Services. Lord MacKay of Clashfern (editor) (1991). Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 4. 4th Edition. UK: LexisNexis Butterworths. Michael Furmstone (2000). Building Contract Casebook. 3rd Edition. London: Powell-Smith & Furmston’s. Nigel M Robinson, Anthony P. Lavers, George KH Tan and Raymond Chan (1996), Construction Law in Singapore and Malaysia. 2nd Edition. Singapore: Butterworth. Sundra Rajoo (1999). The Malaysian Standard Form of Building Contract (The PAM 1998 Form). 2nd Edition. Malaysia: Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Lexis.com/118Q6J. Perpustakaan Sultanah Zanariah, UTM Skudai. V. Ramsey & S. Furst (2003). Keating on Building Contract. 6th Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

Similar Items