Architect's continuing duty to review design
Architects are design professionals that are retained for their design expertise and an architect that enters into an agreement with the client has specific duties that he has to perform; he has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the design work in which failing to do so...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/18166/1/ArfahHanumMeorAdamMFAB2009.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Architects are design professionals that are retained for their design expertise
and an architect that enters into an agreement with the client has specific duties that he
has to perform; he has a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out the
design work in which failing to do so will render him liable for negligence. The
subject of this research is the ‘Architect’s Continuing Duty to Review Design’, the
existence of this duty was established in the case of Brickfield Properties Ltd v
Newton, where it was held that an architect is under a continuing duty to review his
design and to correct errors that may emerge. The objective of this research is to
understand the nature of this Duty to Review Design owed by the architect and the
extent of such duty. Among the questions that arise for consideration are: does this
duty mean that the architect is under a continuing duty to review his design constantly
and that he is to reconsider all aspects of his design; and what does this duty comprise,
when does it arise also to what extent is the architect liable to for this duty? The
statement by Sachs LJ in Brickfield Properties which states: “The architect is under a
continuing duty to check that his design will work in practice and to correct any
errors which may emerge.”; also highlight the main issue, whether the proposition of
the statement here is that the duty to review design amount to responsibility for
buildability of the design, in which this contradicts with the principle that ‘buildability
is the province of the builder’? Based on the case analysis, it was found that this duty
to review design does not amount to responsibility for buildability; it merely
emphasise the need for architects to exercise reasonable skill and care in ensuring that
the design did not lack buildability. This duty arises when there is a need that
necessitates the architect to keep his design under review; it does not mean that the
architect is to keep constantly reviewing his design. |
|---|