Dispute Resolution In Construction

Designers and project managers in the construction industry seek to fully plan and define the preferred final product as per the client’s preferences at the beginning of a contract this is impossible as all aspects of planning become more difficult the more into the future they extend (PRINCE, 2009). The client is a person that is first party to the contract and requires specialist work on site prior to practical completion of the construction project this is usually carried out by the contractor. The contractor therefore is second party to the contract with the client for the execution of the works as named in the contract agreement. As a result due to the perpetually evolving environment in which construction takes place as well as the unique

Thereby creating a greater scope on how to handle issues of dissatisfaction amongst parties in a construction project with regards to the principal form of contract mentioned. Within the context of a construction contract, the term “variation” the term is used to describe any difference between the circumstances and the contents of the contract works as carried out, compared with the content and the circumstances under which the works are described in the contract documents as intended to have been carried out (Pickanance, Keith 2000). A claim as defined by the Collins English Dictionary is “an assertion of a right; a demand for something as due”. The fact that the research is centred around variations this is not to say that that variations are the only factor that can result in a contractor claim ending up as a dispute; deferred payment by the client, adverse weather conditions, reassignment of manpower concurrent operations just to mention a

Based on the severity of the dispute it can end up being dealt with in different forums. The contract usually dictated which route a dispute will take when handled. Some disputes end up going to court thus requiring a verdict by a judge due to inability to reach a resolve with the help of other dispute resolution systems. In the case of Williams v. Fitzmaurice, there the contractor’s obligation was to build a house “ to be complete and dry fit for Major Fitzmaurice’s occupation by 1st August 1858”, to “provide the whole of the material mentioned or otherwise in the forgoing particulars necessary for the completion of the works” and to “ perform all the works every kind mentioned and contained in the foregoing specification”, where there was no mention of flooring in the contract documents the court held that the cost of the flooring could not constitute a change because it is clearly to be inferred that the flooring was part of the overall obligations (Pickanance, Keith 2000). This is something that occurred