The continuing development of robotics and AI is a potential game changer for the construction industry and may help to resolve (or at least improve) skills shortages and poor productivity rates. However, this technological future will also bring new risk profiles to construction contracts and additional contractual provisions to deal with matters such as IP rights, data protection, confidentiality, health and safety and cyber risk. Perhaps the real question is how this technology will develop and what its impact will be onsite.
In light of the discussion and hype surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), this article considers AI and construction law in the context of risk and contract management, as well as a number of existing technologies which could assist in this respect. With greater collaboration between lawyers and clients, AI can bring greater efficiencies and efficacies to contract generation, review, analysis and management processes.
In 2017 the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC) finally unveiled the Second Edition of the 1999 Rainbow Suite, Red, Yellow and Silver Books. This article examines how the FIDIC form deals with time and includes an appendix detailing the changes made to Clause 8, the primary clause which deals with time or 'Commencement, Delays and Suspension' from the original 1999 contract.
Certifiers hold a key role in construction contracts. Certificates, statements and decisions issued by certifiers can have a huge impact on cash flow. Their actions can also provide a recipe for disputes where the certifier is viewed as, or is, one-sided or biased. So, what are the basic laws governing certification and what can be done when something goes wrong in the process?
An application was recently made to restrain notice being given of a winding-up petition which sought payment of some £820,000 following an adjudicator's decision in respect of goods supplied and services rendered for the development and conversion of Victory House. The adjudicator had rejected Victory House's argument that it was not liable to pay the sum identified in the interim application because the parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding which provided for other payments to be made.