vii
TABLES OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
V
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLES OF CONTENT
vii
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
xiii
LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS
xiv
LIST OF CASES
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xx
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background of Research
1
1.2
Problem Statement/ Research Issue
7
1.3
Previous Research
17
1.4
Objective of Research
18
1.5
Scope of Research
18
1.6
Significance of Research
19
1.7
Research Process and Method of Approach
20
1.8
Tentative Chapter Headings
23
1.8.1
23
Chapter 1: Introduction
viii
CHAPTER
TITLE
1.8.2
Chapter 2: Architect’s Instructions In
PAGE
23
Construction Industry
1.8.3
Chapter 3: Analysis Of Cases Law
24
1.8.4
Chapter 4: Conclusion And
24
Recommendation
2
ARCHITECT’S INSTRUCTIONS
IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
2.1
Introduction
25
2.2
Who is the Architect?
27
2.3
Duties of the Architect
28
2.3.1
Design
30
2.3.2
Contract Administration
33
2.3.3
Supervision
34
2.3.4
Certification
35
2.3.5
Instruction
37
2.4
2.5
What is an Architect’s Instruction?
39
2.4.1
Definition
39
2.4.2
Instruction = Direction
42
2.4.3
Valid Architect’s Instruction
42
Provisions Empowering Architect’s Instrution
44
2.5.1
PAM 2006
44
2.5.2
Other Malaysian Forms
48
2.5.3
International Forms
40
2.5.4
Compliance with Architect’s Instruction
52
2.6
Disputes of Architect’s Instruction
52
2.7
Summary
49
ix
CHAPTER
3
TITLE
PAGE
ANALYSIS OF CASES LAW:
IDENTIFYING VALID AND ACCEPTABLE FORM
AND FORMAT OF ARCHITECT’S INSTRUCTIONS
3.1
Introduction
57
3.2
Case 1: Myers v. Sarl.
58
3.2.1
Fact of case
58
3.2.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
58
3.2.3
Finding
58
3.2.4
The Principle
59
3.2.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
60
Instruction
3.3
Case 2: Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. Melroy
60
& Sons & Ors.
3.3.1
Fact of case
60
3.3.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
61
3.3.3
Finding
61
3.3.4
The Principle
64
3.3.5
Invalid and Unacceptable Form and Format
64
of Instruction
3.4
Case 3: Molloy v. Liebe.
65
3.4.1
Fact of case
65
3.4.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
65
3.4.3
Finding
66
3.4.4
The Principle
67
3.4.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
67
Instruction
3.5
Case 4: Brodie v. Cardiff Corporation.
68
3.5.1
Fact of case
68
3.5.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
69
3.5.3
Finding
69
3.5.4
The Principle
70
x
CHAPTER
TITLE
3.5.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
PAGE
70
Instruction
3.6
Case 5: Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd v. St Pancras
71
Borough Council.
3.6.1
Fact of case
71
3.6.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
72
3.6.3
Finding
72
3.6.4
The Principle
73
3.6.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
73
Instruction
3.7
Case 6: Holland Hanned & Cubbits (N) Ltd v. Welsh
74
Health Technical Services and Others.
3.7.1
Fact of case
74
3.7.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
75
3.7.3
Finding
75
3.7.4
The Principle
76
3.7.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
76
Instruction
3.7.6
Invalid and Unacceptable Form and Format
76
of Instruction
3.8
Case 7: The Missouri Department of transportation,
77
ex rel. PR Developers, Inc. v. Safeco
Insurance Co. of America and Robertson
Contractors, Inc.
3.8.1
Fact of case
77
3.8.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
77
3.8.3
Finding
78
3.8.4
The Principle
78
3.8.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
79
Instruction
xi
CHAPTER
TITLE
3.9
Case 8: Flooring System Inc. v. Staat Construction
PAGE
79
Co. DLJ
3.9.1
Fact of case
79
3.9.2
Issue (relating to instruction)
80
3.9.3
Finding
80
3.9.4
The Principle
81
3.9.5
Valid and Acceptable Form and Format of
82
Instruction
3.10
Analysis of Cases Law
82
3.10.1
82
Group 1: Bona Fide Written Architect’s
Instruction
3.10.2
Group 2: Written Architect’s Instruction
84
with Additional Term
3.10.3
Group 3: Other Forms of Written
85
Architect’s Instruction
3.11
5
3.10.4
Group 4: Arbitration Award
87
3.10.5
Group 1: Oral Instruction
88
Summary
88
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1
Introduction
91
5.2
Summary of Research Findings
92
5.3
Problem Encountered during Research
97
5.4
Limitation of Research
98
5.5
Suggestion for Future Research
98
5.6
Conclusion
99
REFERENCES
100
BIBLIOGRAPHY
103
APPENDIX A~B
105106
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
3.1
Summary of Findings (Cases 1 ~ 3)
89
3.2
Summary of Findings (Cases 4 ~ 8)
90
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
1.1
Letter 01
12
1.2
Email 01
13
1.3
Drawing 01
14
1.4
Formal AI 01
16
1.4
Research Process
22
xiv
LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS
AC
Law Report: Appeal Case
AI
Architect’s Instruction
BLR
Building Law Reports, UK
CIDB
Construction Industry Development Board, Malaysia
CIDB year
CIDB Standards Form of Contract for Building Works.
CNC
Certificate of Non Completion
EI
Engineer’s Instructions
EOT
Extension of Time
ICE
Institution of Civil Engineers
JCT
Joint Contracts Tribunal, UK
PAM
Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia
PAM year
PAM's Agreement and Schedule of Conditions
of Building Contract
PSSCOC
Public Sector Standard Conditions of Contract for Construction
Works
PWD
Public Work Department (Jabatan Kerja Raya), Malaysia
PWDyear
PWD Form 203A – Standard Form of Contract
of Building Contract
RIBA
The British Royal Institute of Architect
REDAS D&B
Real Estate Developers’ Association of Singapore Design and
Build Conditions
SIA
Singapore Institute of Architects
S.O.
Superintending Officer
xv
LIST OF CASES
CASES
PAGE
Alexander Corfield v. David Grant (1992) 59 BLR 102.
35
Balfour Beatty Building Ltd. v. Chestermount Properties Ltd.
3
(1993) 62 BLR 1.
Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 [1957] 1
30
WLR 582; 2 All ER 118.
Brockman v. Soltysiak 49 S.W.3d 740, 745 (Mo.App. E.D.2001).
80
Brodie v. Cardiff Corporation [1919] AC 337 (HL).
53, 68, 87,
90, 95
Cardy v. Taylor (1994) 38 CLR 79.
31
CJ Peace Ltd. v. Hereford Corporation (1968) 66 LGR 647.
54
Consarc Design v. Hutch Investments (2002) 84 Con LR 36.
35
Cooper v. Langdon (1841) 9 M&W 60.
43, 46
xvi
CASES
PAGE
Craig Johnson Construction v. Floyd Town Architects (2006
32
Opinion No. 43, Docket No. 31448).
Crosby (J) & Sons Ltd v. Portland Urban District Council (1967)
54
5 BLR 121, QBD
English Industrial Estate Corporation v. George Whimpey Co.
4
Ltd. [1973] 7 BLR 122.
Faulkner Associates v. Newham LBC [1994] 71 BLR 1.
28
Flooring System Inc. v. Staat Construction Co. DLJ ED 80814 and
79, 87, 90,
ED 80867, filed 11 February 2003.
96
Gallagher v. Hirsch (1899) NY 45 App Div 467.
26
Glenlion Construction v. The Guinness Trust (1988) 39 BLR 89.
39
Greaves & Co. (Contractors) Ltd v. Bayham Meikle and Partners
31
[1975] 3 All ER 99.
Hickman & Co. v. Roberts (1913) AC 229.
36
Holland Hanned & Cubbits (N) Ltd v. Welsh Health Technical
17, 74, 82,
Services and Others (1981) 18 BLR 89.
90, 93
J & J Fee Ltd. v. The Express Lift Co. (1993) 34 Con LR 147.
39
Jardine Engineering v. Shimizu Corporation (1992) 63 BLR 96.
39
xvii
CASES
PAGE
John Holland Construction v. Majorca Projects [2000] 16 Const.
37
LJ 114.
Leicester Guardians v. Trollope [1911] 75 JP 197.
34
London Borough of Hounslow v. Twickenham Garden
29, 30, 34
Developments Ltd [1971] 1 Ch 233.
London Borough of Hilingdon v. Cutler [1967] 2 All ER 361.
52
London Borough of Merton v. Stanley Hughes Leach (1985) 32
39
BLR 51.
Mitsui Construction Co. Ltd v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong
38, 44
(1986) 33 BLR, 1 (PC).
Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd. v. Gilbert-Ash Northern [1974]
2
AC 689 717.
Molloy v. Liebe [1910] 102 LT 611.
65, 83, 87,
88, 89, 94
Myers v. Sarl (1860) 3 E & E 306.
26, 58, 85,
88, 89, 95
Neodox v. Swinton and Pendlebury Borough Council (1958) 5
39, 54
BLR 34.
Pacific Associates v. Baxter [1990] 1 QB 993.
36, 37
xviii
CASES
PAGE
Page v. Llandaff and Dinas Powis Rural District Council (1901)
36
Hudson’s BC 4th ed. Vol.2 316.
Pepper v. Bourland (1792)
36
Robinson v. Powers 777 S.W.2d 675 (Mo.App. S.D.1989).
80
Rusell v. Viscont Sa da Bandeira [1862] 13 CB (NS) 149.
26
Sharpe v. San Paulo Railway (1872-1873) LR 8 Ch App 665.
43, 46, 53
Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd v. St Pancras Borough Council (1958)
54, 71, 83,
14 BLR 80.
85, 90, 94,
97
Steven Phoa Cheng Loon & Ors v. Highland Properties Sdn Bhd
31
& Ors. [2000] 4 MLJ 200.
Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v. O'Reilly [1978] 1
38, 44
Lloyd’s Rep 595.
Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974] AC 727.
29
Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. Melroy & Sons & Ors (1878) 3
17, 43, 60,
App Cas 1040.
85, 89, 95
The Missouri Department of transportation, ex rel. PR
77, 87, 90,
Developers, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America and
96
Robertson Contractors, Inc ED 79860, filed 5 November 2002.
Voli v. Inglewood Shire Council (1963) ALR 657.
32
xix
CASES
PAGE
Yorkshire Water Authority v. Sir Alfred McAlpine & Son
55
(Northern) Ltd. (1985) 32 BLR 114.
xx
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Suggested format for Architect’s Instruction.
105
B
Suggested format for Confirmation of Architect’s
106
Instruction.