*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Building and Construction Law Journal<\/em> (Volume 33 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL<\/a><\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/a><\/p>\n Fit for Purpose or Due Skill and Care? <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u00e2\u20ac\u201c Dr Donald E Charrett<\/p>\n This paper discusses the three judgments in the English case of MT H\u00c3\u00b8jgaard a\/s v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd<\/em>. The judgments contained detailed analyses of the conflicting requirements of preparing a design with due skill and care, and meeting a fitness for purpose obligation. The Supreme Court upheld the original judgment in the Technology and Construction Court that the contract required the wind turbine structures to have a service life of 20 years, notwithstanding that they were designed with due skill and care and in accordance with the relevant (but erroneous) international standard. The ultimate outcome depended on construction of the contractual terms in accordance with well-established principles; the fact that the judgment of the Court of Appeal differed from that of the Supreme Court emphasises the complexity of this task in the face of contractual documents of multiple authorship and loose wording.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Articles<\/h3>\n