vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
v
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF TABLES
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xiv
TABLE OF CASES
xvi
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Background of Research
1
1.3
Statement of Issues
3
1.4
Objective of Research
4
1.5
Scope of Research
5
1.6
Significance of Research
5
1.7
Research Methodology
6
1.8
Research Structure
6
viii
2
THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
9
2.1
Introduction
9
2.2
Placement of Contract
10
2.3
Contractual Arrangements in Construction Contracts
10
2.3.1
Drawings and Specification-based Packages
12
2.3.2
Work Schedule or Bill of Quantities Based
Packages
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3
12
‘Package Deal’ or ‘Design and Build’
Arrangements
13
‘Measure and Value’ or ‘Schedule’ Contracts
13
Features of Construction Contract
13
2.4.1
Comparison with a Sale of Goods Transaction
14
2.4.2
Provisions for Progress Payments
15
2.4.3
Provisions for Variation of Works
16
Contract Documents
16
2.5.1
Articles of Agreement
17
2.5.2
Conditions of Contract
17
2.5.3
Plans and Drawings
17
2.5.4
Bills of Quantities
18
2.5.5
Schedule of Rates
18
2.5.6
Specifications
19
Interpretation of the Contracts
19
2.6.1
Rules of Interpretation of the Contracts
20
2.6.1.1 Literal Interpretation
21
2.6.1.2 The Contra Proferentum Principle
21
2.6.1.3 The Ejusdem Generis Rule
22
Conclusion
’LUMP SUM’ IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
23
26
3.1
Introduction
26
3.2
The Term ‘Lump Sum’ in Construction Contract
27
ix
3.2.1
Standard Form of Contract
27
3.2.1.1 JKR 203A (Rev. 2007) Form
28
3.2.1.2 JKR 75 (JKR Sarawak Form of
Contract)
3.2.2
30
Contract Act 1950 (Act 136)
30
Interpretation from Literature
3.4
Other Aspects of Construction Contract Related to
31
‘Lump Sum’ Interpretations
36
3.4.1
Lump Sum Tender
36
3.4.2
Lump Sum Contract
37
3.4.3
Entire v Divisible Contracts
40
3.4.4
Substantial Completion
42
3.4.5
Non-Completion
43
3.4.6
Valuation of Variations
44
3.4.7
Contract to Do Whole Work is Lump Sum
3.4.8
4
3.2.1.4 PAM Contract 2006 (with Quantities)
3.3
3.5
29
Contract
45
Quantum Meruit
45
Conclusion
47
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE TERM
’LUMP SUM’ IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
49
4.1
Introduction
49
4.2
The Law of Lump Sum or Entire Contract
50
4.3
Law Cases in Relation with the Term Lump Sum
53
4.3.1
Sapiahtoon v. Lim Siew Hui
54
4.3.2
Building & Estates Ltd v AM Connor
56
4.3.3
KP Kunchi Raman v Goh Brothers Sdn Bhd
58
4.3.4
Ming & Co v Leong Ping Ching
61
4.3.5
Nirwana Construction Sdn Bhd v Pengarah
Jabatan Kerja Raya Negeri Sembilan Darul
x
Khusus & Anor
4.3.6
Tong Aik (Far East) Ltd v. Eastern Minerals
& Trading (1959) Ltd.
4.3.7
4.5
65
Judicial Interpretations of the Term
‘Lump Sum’ In Construction Contracts
67
Conclusion
73
4.5.1
Judicial Positions on Lump Sum Contract
74
4.5.2
Instances Where Lump Sum is not
considered as Entire Contract
5
64
Yong Mok Hin v United Malay States Sugar
Industries Ltd
4.4
62
78
CONCLUSIO N
80
5.1
Introduction
80
5.2
Summary of Research Findings
81
5.3
Study Constraints
89
5.4
Conclusion
89
REFERENCES
92
APPENDICES
94
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
TITLE
Figure 1
Design Detailing and Contractual Arrangement
PAGE
11
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
TITLE
Table 1
Interpretations of the Term ‘Lump Sum’
from Literature
Table 2
PAGE
29
Judicial Interpretations of the Term
‘Lump Sum’ In Construction Contracts
64
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
A
JKR 203B: JKR Standard Form of Tender
B
JKR 203B: Standard Form of Tender
PAGE
94
(Design & Build or Turnkey Contracts)
96
C
Appendix Q: JKR Sarawak Standard Quotation Form
97
D
JKR 203B: JKR Standard Form of Tender Rev. 2007):
JKR Standard Form of Contract
E
PWD 75 (Rev. 12/06): JKR Sarawak Standard Form
of Contract
F
G
H
98
99
PAM Contract 2006 (With Quantities): Agreement
and Conditions
100
Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136)
103
Nirwana Construction Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus & Anor [2008] 4 MLJ 157
111
xiv
LIST OF ABBREVIA TIONS
AC
-
Appeal Cases
ALL ER
-
All England Law Reports Reprint
App. Cas.
-
Appeal Cases
B. & Ad
-
Barnewall & Adolphus
BLR
-
Building Law Reports
Camp
-
Campbell
CP
-
Carrington & Payne
CIDB
-
Construction Industry Development Board
DLP
Defects Liability Period
ER
-
English Reports
FC
-
Federal Court
FIDIC
-
Federation Internationale de Inginieurs Conseils
HL
-
House of Lords
IBID
-
(in the same)
ICE
-
The Institution of Civil Engineers, UK
J
-
Judge
JKR
-
Jabatan Kerja Raya
KB
-
King’s Bench
LGR
-
Local Government Reports
LJ
-
Lord Justice
LJ Ex.
-
Law Journal Exchequer
LR
-
Law Report
LT
-
Law Times Report
LTD
-
Limited
MLJ
-
Malayan Law Journal
PAM
-
Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia
xv
PWD
-
Public Works Department
RIBA
-
Royal Institute of British Architects
SC
-
Session Cases
SCR
-
Supreme Court Report
SO
-
Superintending Officer
Term Rep.
-
Term Reports
TLR
-
Times Law Report
VO
-
Variation Order
VOL
-
Volume
WLR
-
Weekly Law Report
xvi
TABLE OF CASES
CASES
PAGE
Aisla Craig Fishing Co Ltd v. Malvern Fishing Co [1983] 1 All ER 101……….….21
Appleby v Myers [1867] LR 2 CP 651…………………………………35,36,40,43,46
Bolton v. Mahadeva [1972] 1 WLR 1009……………………………...………...38,39
Boone v Eyre [1779] 126 ER 160……………………………..…………………….52
British Steel Corporation v. Cleveland Bridge and Engineering
[1984] 1 All ER 504...………………………………………………………….41
Building & Estates Ltd v AM Connor [1958] 1 MLJ 173……..………...……51,62,66
Collins v Godfrey [1831]1 B. & Ad. 950…………………………………..……..…34
Cutter v Powell [1795] 6 Term Rep. 320…………………………….……….36,42,59
Dakin v. Lee [1916] 1 KB 566………………………………………………..……..42
Farnsworth v. Garrard [1807] 1 Camp 38……………………………....………….37
Forman & Co Pty Ltd v. The Liddlesdale [1900] AC190…………………………..37
Forrest v Scottish County Investment Co Ltd [1915] SC 115………………………40
Gilbert-Ash v Modern Engineering [1974] AC 689 (HL)…………………..…..13,23
Gilbert & Partners v. Knight [1968] 2 All ER 248 (CA)…………….……..………41
H Dakin & Co. Ltd v. Lee [1916] 1 KB 566……………………………………...…37
Hanvale v Green [1958] 2 WLR 775…………………………………..……………60
Hoenig v. Issacs [1952] 2 All ER 176………..……13,23,36,37,38,43,44,50,51,55,58
Holland Hannen & Cubitts v. W.H.T.S.O. [1981] 18 BLR 80………………..….….41
Hollier v. Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd [1972] 1 All ER 399…………………….….20
Interpro Engineering Pte Ltd v. Sin Heng Construction Co Pte Ltd
[1998] 1 SLR 694………………………………………………….……...……20
KP Kunchi Raman v Goh Brothers Sdn Bhd [1978] 1 MLJ 89…….…...46,52,63,66
Ming & Co v Leong Ping Ching [1964] 1 MLJ 312…………………...…55,63,65,66
xvii
Newfoundland Government v. Newfoundland Ry.
[1888] 13 App. Case. 199 (PC)………………………………………………..41
Nirwana Construction Sdn Bhd v Pengarah Jabatan Kerja Raya
Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus & Anor [2008] 4 MLJ 157…………….56,64,66
Pattinson v Luckley [1875] L.R. 10 Ex. 330………………………………………..59
Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v. Mckinney Foundation Ltd
[1970] 69 LGR 1…………..………………….…………………………......…20
Pigott Foundations Ltd v. Shepherd Construction Ltd [1993] 67 BLR 48……...19,23
Rigby v Bristol Corporation [1860] 29 LJ Ex 356…………………..………..…….34
Sapiahtoon v Lim Siew Hui [1963] 1 MLJ 305……..……………...…....…..49,62,66
Stegmann v. O’Connor [1899] 81 LT 627 (CA)……………………………………42
Sumpter v. Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673……………………………………..12,37,56,59
Tern Construction Group v RBS Garages [1992] 34 Con LR 137………...……36,43
Thorn v London Corporation [1876] 1 App.Cas. 120…………………..………34,42
Tong Aik (Far East) Ltd. v Eartern Minerals & Trading
(1959) Ltd. [1963] 1 MLJ 322 ……………………….….……………45,58,65,66
Williams v Fizmaurice [1858] 3 H&N 844……………………………………30,33,34
Williams v Roffrey Brotheres & Nicholls [1990] 1 All ER 512…………………..…14
Wells v. Army & Navy Co-operative Society [1902] 86 LT 764…………………….21
Whitaker v Dunn [1887] 3 TLR 602…………………………………………..……..46
Vigers v Cook [1902] 2 KB 475…………………………………………………...…42
Yong Mok Hin v United Malay States Sugar Industries Ltd
[1967] 2 MLJ 9…………………………………………………………..60,65,66