INTERESTING ITEM REGARDING SUPPLIERS’ DISCLAIMER IN QUOTES.
Ralph, the full text is unavailable to non-subscribers, unless you pay $5 per view. Would you be able to provide additional information (although just the one-liner is quite an informative grabber) - “Disclaimers in a price quotation do not trump a suppliers contractual duty to furnish materials that meet the specifications or supply requirements of a project.”
My favorite disclaimer is:
“All similarity between drawings and specifications are purely coincidental.”
Disclaimers from Architect’s.
Source: Holloway Consulting Group, THE E-M@IL CONSTRUCTION REPORTER, ISSUE NO. R55
For example, in a recent HCG case, the following unusual language was found in the fixed price construction contract:
“The plans and specifications are complimentary. The contractor is to provide all work shown on the plans, whether or not adequately described in the specifications, and all work described in the specifications whether or not specifically indicated on the plans as if called for by both.”
Wait, wait. There is more.
As fundamentally unethical as it may be, attempts are sometimes made to impose responsibility on the contractor for the workability of the design. This may happen whether or not the action is properly predicated on the contract documents via the inclusion of language, such as the following from a recent HCG case:
“The contractor is responsible to furnish whatever is necessary to ensure a complete and properly functioning system, regardless of whether or not shown in the contract documents. It is the intention of this section to have a complete system functioning adequately for its intended purpose. It is the contractor’s responsibility to correct materials and equipment if they have not been sized properly, at no additional cost, in order to achieve this purpose.”
My specifications are occasionally complementary but less frequently complimentary, as we all know they are to address the Contractor.
The “plans and specifications are complimentary…” clause is not at all unusual; it occurs in the AIA general conditions (spelled correctly, of course).
Well, Wayne, guess you’re in the right “court”!!!
Couldn’t resist that one!
Incidentally, I have gone to the court’s web site but have not been able to locate the decision. Would think it may have come before the first of the year.
Ralph,
I am in the AD(vantage) court and have just served up an ACE.
I attended a job site meeting, and on the wall of the conference room was a sign that says,
"The building shown in these plans is generic.
Your building may vary."
Truth in advertising…
Speaking of truth in advertising…
At the gysm where I used to work out, there was a local contractor’s project manager who had a T-shirt that read “We’re slow, but we’re expensive.”