Fundamentals Of Construction Law Sample

Part 1 : Legal Assessment of Energy Contracting’s Role in the Blackstone Edge Scheme

Introduction : Fundamentals Of Construction Law

It will examine the complex contractual environment of Energy Contracting's major project, the Blackstone Edge Scheme, in this rigorous legal assessment. The intricate and unforeseen nature of this project necessitates a sophisticated comprehension of the contractual obligations and interactions among Energy Contracting, Grun Power plc, and Westmorland Excavations Ltd. Energy Contracting, responsible for the Blackstone Edge Scheme's balance of plant (BoP) work, is under legal investigation for project delays and technical problems. The legal situation of Energy Contracting will be examined in this evaluation, taking into account the conditions of their contract with the developer, Grun Power plc, as well as the later subcontracting arrangement with Westmorland Excavations Ltd. The assessment has been designed to tackle the main points of disagreement, which include: contractual duties and possible violations; delay damages and prospective time extensions, and particular problems such as ground conditions and anchor cage compatibility. Every one of these elements will be carefully examined in the context of the offered paperwork, the terms of the contract, and pertinent legal cases.

The aim to provide an in-depth, critical evaluation of the current state of affairs for Energy Contracting, looking at both sides of the company's partnership with Westmorland Excavations and Grun Power. In addition to determining who owes what and why, this analysis will try to uncover any underlying legal complexities that the parties involved may not have previously taken into account.

It has been conducted thorough analysis of contract agreements, email exchanges, and other applicable correspondence to provide this opinion. Our analysis is bolstered by case law and legal principles that are relevant to contract law in the construction sector. In order to facilitate well-informed decision-making in the face of intricate legal issues, the conclusions reached will provide a clear understanding of Energy Contracting's legal position, potential liabilities, and degree of trust in these findings.

Energy Contracting's Position with Grun Power

Contractual Obligations and Breaches

Several important considerations must be made when evaluating Energy Contracting's legal stance regarding its agreement with Grun Power for the Blackstone Edge Scheme (Özelli?, 2020). It is related to the Energy Contracting's contractual responsibilities under the 2017 FIDIC Red Book contract. These responsibilities cover a broad range of Balance of Plant (BoP) operations, such as building access roads, cable trenches, turbine foundations and electrical connections, among other civil and electrical tasks (Ravaska, 2021). Energy Contracting was obliged to comply with the contract's precise technical standards and deadlines, which included following Grun Power's guidelines for the turbines.

This analysis centres on potential violations of these requirements, specifically technical non-compliance and delays. The project was significantly delayed, and if the delays exceed the contractually stipulated time extensions, they may be deemed a breach of the FIDIC Red Book (Khrais, 2021). Moreover, the incompatibility of the anchor cages with the turbine towers presents doubts regarding Energy Contracting's compliance with technical criteria. Depending on the exact conditions of the contract, it could be considered a breach if Energy Contracting was in charge of making sure of this compatibility.

Furthermore, the evaluation rests on how the contract interprets delay damages, how FIDIC contracts define performance standards, and how risks are allocated especially when it comes to unanticipated ground circumstances (Khalef et al., 2021). Energy Contracting's defence against any allegations of breach would probably centre on the details of the agreement, the causes of the delays, and the desired level of performance. This scenario emphasises how intricate contractual relationships may be in major building projects and how crucial it is to have precise agreements in place to manage duties and expectations (Sigalov et al., 2021). This specific subclause specifies that a contractor is entitled to an extension of time if they encounter unanticipated delays or interruptions as a result of actions taken by a public authority. It is specified explicitly that Sub-Clause 8.4 b) which deals with the contractor's right to an extension of the project timeline covers such delays or disruptions (Hughes & Champion, 2022).

Delay Damages and Extensions

The problems of delay damages and time extensions are critical in the complex context of Energy Contracting's administration of the Blackstone Edge Scheme. Under the 2017 FIDIC Red Book contract, Energy Contracting is subject to particular requirements for delay damages which are often computed as a daily percentage of the contract value (Hughes & Champion, 2022b). In this instance, the contract stipulates, subject to a maximum ceiling, a delay damage rate of 1.5% of the contract price. As long as the delay damages are not criminal and accurately assess the loss they can be enforced, by legal precedents established in instances such as “Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. New Garage & Motor Co Ltd”.

In addition, the FIDIC Red Book allows for time extensions under specific circumstances, such as unforeseen delays brought on by outside influences like actions by governmental authorities (Jayasena & Kulatunga, 2023). This is consistent with legal precepts emphasised in decisions like “Balfour Beatty Building Ltd v Chestermount Properties Ltd” promoting the contractor's need to anticipate delays at the time of contract signature. In the context of Energy Contracting, the enforcement of delay damages and the validity of time extensions will therefore depend on a careful examination of these elements, including the particulars of the contract and the kind of delays experienced (Bartholomew, 2022). The resolution of this contractual dispute will largely depend on the contractor's compliance with the notification obligations under the contract and his or her capacity to demonstrate that the delays were unforeseeable by the guidelines established by pertinent case law.

Ground Conditions and Anchor Cages

The ground conditions and anchor cage compatibility difficulties are important in the context of Energy Contracting's Blackstone Edge Scheme (BB Bown, 2022). The project's governing FIDIC Red Book contract normally assigns responsibility to the employer for unanticipated ground conditions, unless the contractor could have reasonably predicted such conditions. Legal precepts such as those established in the case of “Holme v. Guppy (1838) 3 M&W 387”, which held that a contractor is not responsible for unanticipated site conditions unless they knowingly assume the risk, represent this.

The issue of the anchor cages' incompatibility with turbine towers in the particular instance of Energy Contracting is a difficult task (Ríos et al., 2023). The exact requirements outlined in the contract will often determine who is responsible for guaranteeing compatibility. If Energy Contracting was supposed to confirm that the anchor cages meet the turbine specifications, then failing to do so might be considered a contract violation. Energy Contracting's culpability might change, nevertheless, if this duty belonged to Grun Power or the engineer (Santos et al., 2021). Failure on the part of Energy Contracting to verify that the anchor cages satisfy the turbine requirements could be interpreted as a breach of contract. However, Energy Contracting's liability might vary whether Grun Power or the engineer had this responsibility.

The problems with the ground that impact the turbine base further complicate the situation. Concerns concerning the risk allocation between the contractor and the employer are raised by the finding of a "freak geological weakness" at the site, as reported in the documentation. According to the decision in “Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd v. Docklands Light Railway Ltd (1996) 78 BLR 42”, a key factor in establishing culpability will be how the provisions of the contract are interpreted and how much site inspection the contractor is required to do.

Furthermore, Energy Contracting's legal stance concerning the ground conditions and anchor cages will primarily rely on the particular contractual duties and the extent to which these conditions were predictable or ought to have been recognised during the preliminary site inspections. It will be necessary to carefully review the contract's provisions, the facts surrounding these objections, and the applicable legal precedents in order to resolve these difficulties (Lee et al., 2021).

Case Law and Legal Precedents

Within the legal framework of the Backstone Edge Scheme, the intricacies of contract law, as expressed by a range of case laws and legal doctrines, are crucial in analysing the possible responsibilities and liabilities of Energy Contracting. The fundamental rules governing the recovery of damages in contract law were established by the Hadley v (KC, 2022). Baxendale case (1854), which is especially illuminating. According to the ruling in this case, damages must be as high as can be fairly and reasonably inferred from either the breach itself or from the normal course of events, or they must be as high as can be reasonably assumed to have been in both parties' minds when the parties entered into the contract. When assessing the compensability of damages resulting from delays or technical malfunctions in the Backstone Edge Scheme, this legal premise is essential . Whether the damages claimed can be considered as having been reasonably foreseeable by Energy Contracting and Grun Power at the time of entering into the contract will determine whether this principle applies in the current situation. This principle also emphasises how crucial it is to show a direct causal connection between the alleged damages and the breach (such a delay or technical non-compliance).

The legal environment in which Energy Contracting functions is further clarified by the 1970 case of Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v. McKinney Foundations Ltd (Jenkins, 2021). This instance illustrates how crucial it is to follow agreed-upon deadlines and the consequences of doing otherwise. It provides important context for understanding how courts interpret terms pertaining to time extensions and the contractor's schedule-observance duties. This case emphasises the necessity for Energy Contracting to carefully record and explain any delays, especially in light of the FIDIC Red Book clauses that regulate their contract (Zizodwa & Mkhize, 2021). This case and the ideas from Hadley v. Baxendale imply that Energy Contracting must show that any delays were unanticipated or outside of their control and that there is a clear connection between the delays and any damages that are being sought.

Another significant case that has a significant bearing on Energy Contracting's circumstances is Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd v. Docklands Light Railway Ltd (1996), particularly in light of the unanticipated ground conditions (Jones et al., 2020). This example highlighted a key point in the Backstone Edge Scheme: the importance of contract provisions in defining who is responsible for and assumes risk for unforeseen site conditions. The decision in this case suggests that the contractor's need to allocate risk for such unforeseeable circumstances is contingent upon the particulars of the contract. The ramifications for Energy Contracting depend on the precise language and provisions of their agreement with Grun Power, especially in relation to whether Energy Contracting explicitly took on or left the risk of unanticipated geological problems with Grun Power (Leitner & Hyde, 2023).

Understanding liquidated damages, a notion that is directly related to the delay damages being examined in the Backstone Edge Scheme, requires an understanding of the underlying concepts set forth in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915). This decision establishes a distinct boundary between penalties and true pre-estimates of loss, which are not subject to enforcement. The enforceability of the delay damages specified in Energy Contracting's contract would rely on whether or not these damages are disproportionately high and so penal in nature, or if they truly pre-estimate Grun Power's loss as a result of the delay.

Furthermore, the 2007 case of Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd v. Honeywell Control Systems Ltd offers a perspective on the relationship between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations, its subcontractor (Özyi??i?t, 2022). This case clarifies how liabilities and obligations are allocated among various parties in a building project, which helps understand subcontracting and the principal contractor's duties. According to the case, Energy Contracting is still ultimately accountable to Grun Power for the project's timely and accurate completion, even though they may have assigned some jobs to Westmorland Excavations (Sadry, 2020). Energy Contracting's stance must be navigated with careful consideration of the contractual nuances, the details of the project delays and technical issues, and the general principles of contract law as illuminated by these important cases. This legal backdrop serves as the foundation for a nuanced understanding of Energy Contracting's position (Kola, 2023).

Energy Contracting's Position with Westmorland Excavations

Subcontractor Relationship and Obligations

The contractual complexity and obligations that underpin the connection between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations, situated inside the framework of the Backstone Edge Scheme, are crucial in ascertaining the legal standing of both entities. The terms and conditions specified in their agreement will determine how this subcontractor relationship is handled, which is normally controlled by contract law rules. The legal obligations of Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations are determined in large part by the type of their contract, which may be formal or based on a "gentleman's agreement," as stated in the documents. The significance of precisely stated contractual terms is emphasised by the British Steel Corporation v. Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd. (1984) decision, particularly in subcontracting arrangements (M Infantino, 2022).

Get Extra 10% OFF on your WhatsApp order!

use my discount

This case serves as an example of how unclear contract language can result in disagreements over the extent, accountability, and payment. In order to determine each party's obligations and liabilities, Energy Contracting must use these principles to precisely define the terms of their agreement with Westmorland Excavations. This entails having a thorough grasp of the objectives, schedule, and terms of payment all essential components of any subcontracting arrangement.

Within the field of construction law, a subcontractor's responsibilities are outlined not only in the contract but also by industry performance standards. Here, the Robinson v. PE Jones (Contractors) Ltd. (2011) case is especially pertinent (Donal Nolan, 2019). It demonstrates the standard notion in construction contracts that a subcontractor is obliged to complete tasks with reasonable skill and care. This standard covers the work that Westmorland Excavations is doing on the project, particularly about installing turbine foundations and following technical requirements (Crane, 2022). There are concerns about whether Westmorland Excavations complied with these requirements given the problems with the anchor cages and the claimed shortcomings in the foundation work.

Therefore, whether Westmorland Excavations performed their contractual duties with the necessary degree of expertise and care will determine Energy Contracting's stance. Furthermore, a key factor in establishing the scope of Westmorland Excavations' obligation will be the contract's provisions about supervision and approval of work, if any (YJSC BOARD, 2022). Subcontractors' obligations are further explained in the 2009 decision of Whittle Movers Ltd v. Hollywood Express Ltd, which highlights that they must abide by the terms of their contract, including any deadlines and specifications that may be specified adequately.

A complicated part of their connection is Energy Contracting's termination of Westmorland Excavations' contract and the ensuing disagreement (Joseph A. Schremmer, 2019). In subcontracting situations, the legal structure controlling contract termination is complex and mainly depends on the terms of the agreement and the type of breach, if any. The 2020 Hillside Parks Ltd. v. Snowdonia National Park Authority case law sheds light on how contracts should be interpreted and how crucial it is to follow their conditions.

Regarding Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations, the validity of the contract termination will rely on whether or not Westmorland Excavations violated the terms of the agreement and whether or not such a violation called for termination (JS Sunshine, 2021). This involves checking to see if all contract-mandated procedural procedures for termination were met. Regarding dispute settlement in construction contracts, the guidelines outlined in the 2005 decision of AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Transport can provide insight. This case serves as a reminder that to resolve disputes outside of court, contracts must be followed. This means that before taking legal action,

Energy Contracting must exhaust all contractual options for settling the conflict with Westmorland Excavations (PL Dawson, 2021). The legal situation of Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations is complex and needs to be examined in the context of the exact terms of the contract, industry performance standards, and contract termination procedures. In this subcontracting relationship, the application of pertinent case law and legal concepts would be crucial in ascertaining their respective rights, obligations, and liabilities.

Payment and Contractual Disputes

A crucial part of Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations' subcontracting relationship is characterised by payment disputes, which are a reflection of larger issues that arise mainly in building projects (Drimmer, 2022). The details of the payment terms specified in their contract are crucial in this situation. The letter highlighting past-due payments and conflicts over the contract price indicates that these disputes usually centre around the terms, time, and quantity of payment. A pertinent legal viewpoint is offered by the RTS Flexible Systems Ltd. v. Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Company KG (UK Production) (2010) case, which highlights the significance of having precise and explicit wording in a contract, particularly with regard to payment.

This case serves as an example of how unclear contractual wording can result in disagreements and legal problems (Chan et al., 2021). To resolve these conflicts, Energy Contracting must make sure that the conditions of payment are clearly agreed upon and recorded. Furthermore, the Bouygues (UK) Ltd v. Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd (2000) case explores the topic of interim payments in construction contracts and emphasises the contractor's duty to pay on time, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. This precedent may have an impact on how Energy Contracting's responsibilities are interpreted regarding the terms and circumstances surrounding Westmorland Excavations' payment obligations (Jervis, 2023).

One of the most important examples of the technical difficulties associated with wind turbine foundation building is the anchor cage. The image presented demonstrates the exact engineering and painstaking labour needed to create the reinforcing steel structure, which is necessary for the turbines to be installed securely (Dr.Poongodi M, 2021). Any departure from the requirements, like the incompatibility problem Westmorland Excavations was experiencing, might cause serious delays in the project and costly consequences.

The geographical arrangement and logistical factors that Energy Contracting needs to oversee are depicted in the schematic map of the Lune Forest Wind Farm (Ahmad et al., 2021). The Mickle Fell turbine positions and access routes are shown on the map, together with the projected Blackstone Edge turbine locations and corresponding access routes. It illustrates the difficult topography and the need for strong infrastructure particularly access roads that must be able to carry large vehicles and equipment. The mention of a road that crosses a creek is especially significant since it raises the possibility of environmental conditions having an impact on construction and access, like the collapse that the correspondences presented discuss. This particular project feature highlights the significance of conducting thorough ground investigations and assigning risk for unforeseen geological conditions (YUSUF, 2021). This latter point became a point of contention between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations.

Beyond payment, conflicts over the nature of the job and contractual responsibilities are among the matters covered by the contractual disputes between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations. The legal case of Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v Tilebox Ltd (2005) provides insight into how courts construe contractual duties and settle disagreements over divergent readings. This instance emphasises how crucial it is to have precise job descriptions and assigned duties in contracts to reduce vagueness, which might result in disagreements (Venkatesh et al., 2020). The precise provisions and conditions of Energy Contracting's agreement with Westmorland Excavations must serve as the foundation for their strategy for settling these disagreements. Furthermore, if their contract contains a dispute resolution procedure, it is quite important (Bronckers & Gruni, 2019). The 2005 case of Costain Ltd. v. Bechtel Ltd. demonstrates how following contractual dispute resolution processes is mainly necessary before pursuing a settlement through court. For Energy Contracting, this means that any effort to settle a disagreement, through discussion, mediation, arbitration, or other means, must first comply with the procedures established in the contract.

The legal implications for Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations grow more complicated if these disagreements turn into accusations of contract violations. When one party doesn't perform as agreed upon, either by defaulting on the contract or by performing below par, a breach takes place. As it addresses the ramifications of breaching a contract and how implied conditions are interpreted, the 2009 case Attorney General of Belize v. Belize Telecom Ltd. is relevant in this aspect. This case serves as more evidence of the need to abide by all contractual obligations, including those that are implied by law, and that breaking these obligations may result in remedies like damages or contract termination (JP Kraus, 2019).

It is crucial for Energy Contracting to determine whether Westmorland Excavations violated any laws regarding the quality or non-completion of work. Depending on the type and severity of any such breach, Energy Contracting may have recourse to damages claims or contract termination. In addition, if the contract contains provisions defining particular consequences for violations like non-performance or late completion, the rule established in the Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v. New Garage & Motor Co Ltd case involving liquidated damages and penalties may also apply. The contractual and financial problems arising between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations necessitate a thorough comprehension of contract law concepts, the particular provisions of their agreement, and pertinent case law. This strategy is necessary to manage the consequences of any possible breaches, settle more general contractual disputes, and handle payment-related difficulties efficiently (Silva et al., 2023).

Termination of Contract

A complicated legal structure governs this momentous occasion, which is the ending of the contract between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations. Contract termination is possible for a number of reasons in construction contracts, particularly those governed by FIDIC guidelines: insolvency, performance standard noncompliance, or violation of contract (Al Bayomi & Eldosouky, 2022). The need to abide by the precise contractual provisions pertaining to termination is demonstrated by the 2020 case of Hillside Parks Ltd. v. Snowdonia National Park Authority. This case shows that any decision to end a contract must to be supported by specific reasons as outlined in the contract and adhere to the guidelines. This means that for Energy Contracting, the decision to terminate will be deemed lawful and valid based on whether or not there were explicit termination conditions in their subcontract with Westmorland Excavations, and whether or not these provisions were observed (Zheng et al., 2021). A case that is pertinent to comprehending the procedural requirements and the ramifications of wrongful termination is AMEC Civil Engineering Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Transport (2005), which highlights the necessity of due process and adherence to contractual rules.

The grounds for termination in the Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations case appear to centre on claimed delays and non-compliance with technical standards. According to the legal precedent set in Rice (t/a The Garden Guardian) v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (2000), a violation cannot be justified by termination unless it is serious or fundamental. According to this approach, Energy Contracting must show that Westmorland Excavations' acts or inactions constituted a material breach of their contractual duties (Tzachor, 2019). In addition, the Stocznia Gdanska SA v. Latvian Shipping Co. and others (1998) case sheds light on the need to give appropriate notice and the chance to correct the breach before terminating an agreement. When determining whether the termination was lawful, Energy Contracting's compliance with these procedural requirements which include giving Westmorland Excavations enough notice and a chance to address any concerns will be crucial.

Energy Contracting may be subject to severe legal and financial repercussions if it is determined that the termination was improper or unreasonable (Casady & Baxter, 2020). Damage claims may result from wrongful termination, as demonstrated by the 1962 White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v. McGregor decision, which established that the innocent party may pursue damages for wrongful repudiation. As a result of the termination, Energy Contracting may be held accountable for any losses suffered by Westmorland Excavations, including lost profits and other consequential damages. The notion that damages in wrongful termination cases are intended to place the innocent party in the same situation they would have been in had the contract been properly completed is further supported by the Hounslow London Borough Council v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd (1971) case (Baker, 2022). In conclusion, complicated legal issues are raised by the contract termination with Westmorland Excavations. Energy Contracting has to negotiate these waters by being cognizant of the possible repercussions of wrongful termination, according to procedural standards, and having a comprehensive grasp of the contractual provisions. In determining whether the termination is lawful and becoming ready for any ensuing legal ramifications, it is crucial to apply pertinent legal concepts and case law (Ryo & Peacock, 2021).

Case Law and Legal Precedents

In the complex legal battle between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Diggings, a thorough comprehension of contract law is crucial, especially about construction law. The fundamental case law governing damages in contracts is Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) (Manoj & Sadual, 2018). It creates the rule that losses that were either expressly brought to the breaching party's knowledge or that were reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was established are eligible for damages claims. Energy Contracting has to win this action because it establishes its possible obligation for any damages that Westmorland Excavations may allege stemming from a contract violation or termination (JS Sunshine, 2021b). The 1962 case Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, which established the notion of "innominate terms," is another significant one. Rather than classifying phrases as "conditions" or "warranties," this method evaluates whether a contract violation is significant enough to warrant termination based on the nature of the breach and its effect on the contract overall. A key point of contention in the disagreement is contract termination, which is governed by rules that have been developed by case law.

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v. McGregor (1962) offers important new information on what happens when an employee is fired without cause (Borg Cardona, 2023).

Furthermore, the 2005 case Alfred McAlpine Capital Projects Ltd v. Tilebox Ltd explores the subject of contract dispute settlement and emphasises the significance of following established dispute resolution processes before pursuing legal action (Mujahed, 2021). This case serves as a reminder to Energy Contracting that, by the terms of their contract with Westmorland Excavations, they must use all available contractual dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration or mediation.

Summary and Conclusions

In conclusion, the contractual disagreements between Energy Contracting and Westmorland Excavations, which were framed by the Lune Forest Wind Farm project, capture the complexity of construction contracts and the difficulties involved in carrying out projects. Along with demonstrating the technical complexities of the project, the presented documentation which includes schematics of the wind farm and pictures of the anchor cage also highlights the vital significance of risk distribution and contractual accuracy in large-scale projects.

The anchor cage is a symbol of more than simply a structural base; it also symbolises the consequences of unclear specifications and the critical need for clarity in specifications. Analogously, the wind farm's schematic highlights the necessity of careful planning and taking into account the environmental and geographic factors that can affect project costs and schedules. The legal and contractual positions of Energy Contracting are contingent upon meticulous documenting of agreements, strict observance of industry norms, and proactive risk management, particularly that which is associated with subcontractor relationships. Energy Contracting must take into account the FIDIC Red Book's obligations, the lessons learnt from case law, and the practical realities of construction management as they negotiate the ramifications of the contract termination with Westmorland Excavations.

Part 2 – Self and Assignment Assessment

The assessment shows a thorough grasp of contract law in the context of construction by skillfully combining intricate legal principles with the specifics of the issue at hand. Case laws like White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v. McGregor and Hadley v. Baxendale are suitably incorporated to support assertions and give the arguments put forth a solid legal foundation. Excavations may get more. Furthermore, the report may have been reinforced by directly connecting the basic principles of contract law to the specific contract under consideration by incorporating more detailed FIDIC terms.

The assessment regime has received positive feedback, indicating its robustness, which has prompted a comprehensive investigation. This assessment's ability to promote a thorough examination of legal concepts and how they relate to real-world situations is one of its strong points. More precise standards for judging the calibre of legal reasoning and the usefulness of the advice offered, however, might improve the rating. In addition, mandating a risk analysis section could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

In summary, the evaluation provides a good portrayal of the legal intricacies inherent in contractual disputes within construction projects, even if there is always space for improvement, especially in terms of foreseeing alternative defences and offering a more nuanced risk analysis. The programme team's input would be to keep the assignments' extensive scope while making sure that the evaluation criteria precisely outline what is expected of legal reasoning and real-world application.

I would give communication abilities, particularly the capacity to explain intricate legal matters succinctly and precisely, a score of 75 out of 100. It is important in a corporate setting that the arguments be presented in a way that both legal professionals and non-specialists can understand. I would give my performance in the area of problem-solving a 78 out of 100. In addition to discussing the current contractual disputes, the paper provides Energy Contracting with a forward-looking outlook on how to handle these problems. However, adding a strategic risk assessment would improve the report's usefulness in foreseeing issues down the road.

References

• Ahmad, T., Zhang, D., Huang, C., Zhang, H., Dai, N., Song, Y., & Chen, H. (2021). Artificial intelligence in sustainable energy industry: Status Quo, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289(289), 125834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125834
• Al Bayomi, K., & Eldosouky, A. (2022). Comparison of AIA and FIDIC Construction Contracts with an equivalent Egyptian contract. Journal of Engineering Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.21608/erjeng.2022.136902.1063
• Baker, D. (2022). Cyber-Ticket Touting as Fraudulent Trading. The Journal of Criminal Law, 86(5), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183221107544
• Bartholomew, S. H. (2022). Construction Contracting: Business and Legal Principles, Second edition. In vtechworks.lib.vt.edu. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/109708
• BB Bown. (2022). From the Boardroom to the Bedroom: Sexual Ecologies in the Algorithmic Age - ProQuest. Www.proquest.com. https://search.proquest.com/openview/4efa9c270139cb02629eff3b2be6ecb0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
• Borg Cardona, Y. A. (2023, July 17). Finance law: the relationship between private law and regulation. Etheses.bham.ac.uk. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/13256/
• Bronckers, M., & Gruni, G. (2019). Taking the enforcement of labour standards in the EUs free trade agreements seriously. Common Market Law Review, 56(6). https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/56.6/COLA2019126
• Casady, C. B., & Baxter, D. (2020). Pandemics, public-private Partnerships (PPPs), and Force Majeure | COVID-19 Expectations and Implications. Construction Management and Economics, 38(12), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2020.1817516
• Chan, E. E., Nik-Bakht, M., & Han, S. H. (2021). Sources of Ambiguity in Construction Contract Documents, Reflected by Litigation in Supreme Court Cases. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000498
• Crane, C. A. (2022, September 30). Large-Scale Commercial Carbon Capture Retrofit of the San Juan Generating Station. Www.osti.gov. https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1889997
• Donal Nolan. (2019). OUP accepted manuscript. Current Legal Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cuz002
• Dr.Poongodi M. (2021). The Recent Technologies to Curb the Second-Wave of COVID-19 Pandemic. Ieee Access, 9, 97906–97928. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3094400
• Drimmer, S. (2022). Connoisseurship, Art History, and the Paleographical Impasse in Middle English Studies. Speculum, 97(2), 415–468. https://doi.org/10.1086/718763
• Hughes, W., & Champion, R. (2022a). Procurement, contracts and project management. ICE Companion to Engineering Management, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1680/icecem.65949.001
• Hughes, W., & Champion, R. (2022b). Procurement, contracts and project management. ICE Companion to Engineering Management, 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1680/icecem.65949.001
• Jayasena, E., & Kulatunga, U. (2023). Assessing delay claims in terms of excusability and criticality of delays in fidic based contracts. Dl.lib.uom.lk, 55(65). https://doi.org/10.31705/WCS.2023.20
• Jenkins, J. (2021). International Construction Arbitration Law. In Google Books. Kluwer Law International B.V. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5_QfEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT15&dq=The+legal+environment+in+which+Energy+Contracting+functions+is+further+clarified+by+the+1970+case+of+Peak+Construction+(Liverpool)+Ltd+v.+McKinney+Foundations+Ltd.+&ots=ksd0CJi3dD&sig=iTRLoZvnbPw9x79acbqdvt3bfUs
• Jervis, B. (2023). Brewing difference: malting, gender and urbanity in medieval England. An examination of drying and malting kilns, c.1150–1500. Journal of Medieval History, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2023.2253807
• Jones, D. L., Savage, D. G., & Westgate, R. (2020). Partnering and Collaborative Working. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003122678
• Joseph A. Schremmer. (2019). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/helr46§ion=15
• JP Kraus. (2019). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/scal93§ion=40
• JS Sunshine. (2021a). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/onulr48§ion=15
• JS Sunshine. (2021b). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/onulr48§ion=15
• Kabanga, L. (2021). Compensation assessment practices in expropriation of customary land rights in Malawi. Open.uct.ac.za. https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/35772
• KC, A. K. (2022). The Law of Contract Damages. In Google Books. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Wzd7EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=The+fundamental+rules+governing+the+recovery+of+damages+in+contract+law+were+established+by+the+Hadley+v&ots=MXCqSAaSih&sig=9f0rRfV6wc8kA-d2L8XOosHBK4o
• Khalef, R., El-adaway, I. H., Assaad, R., & Kieta, N. (2021). Contract Risk Management: A Comparative Study of Risk Allocation in Exculpatory Clauses and Their Legal Treatment. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 13(1), 04520036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000430
• Khrais, R. I. (2021). Delay in Completion and the Employer’s Entitlement for Liquidated Damages under UAE Law and FIDIC Standard form Contracts. Bspace.buid.ac.ae. https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/1971
• Kola, J. (2023). THE “LOCAL CONTENT” CONCEPT IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT: GLOBAL TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW ON THE EXAMPLES OF THE USA, SOUTH AFRICA AND POLAND. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny I Socjologiczny, 85(1), 85–105. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1122471
• Lee, J., Ham, Y., & Yi, J.-S. (2021). Construction Disputes and Associated Contractual Knowledge Discovery Using Unstructured Text-Heavy Data: Legal Cases in the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 13(16), 9403. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169403
• Leitner, J., & Hyde, T. (2023). Modernizing NASA’s risk classification system. Acta Astronautica, 202, 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.10.043
• M Infantino. (2022). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/emint37§ion=23
• Maharaj, K. (2020). An equitable approach to mitigation in contract. Open.library.ubc.ca. https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0394470
• Manoj, K., & Sadual. (2018). DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER INDIAN CONTRACT ACT-1872. 6, 489–496. http://ns2.impactjournals.us/download/archives/09-10-2021-1633777073-6-IMPACT%20:%20IJRHAL-61.%20IJRHAL%20-%20DAMAGES%20FOR%20BREACH%20OF%20CONTRACT%20UNDER%20INDIAN%20CONTRACT%20ACT-1872.pdf
• Mujahed, Y. (2021). The Treatments of Liquidated Damages under the English and the UAE Laws. Bspace.buid.ac.ae. https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/1969
• Özelli?T. (2020). Greenspan bubbles and the emergence of intangible asset manager capitalism of attention merchants. Journal of Ekonomi, 2(1), 15–64. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ekonomi/issue/52536/704804
• Özyi??i?tS. (2022). CLAIM NOTICES UNDER THE FIDIC CONTRACTS: A COMPARISON OF THE CIVIL LAW AND COMMON LAW PERSPECTIVES. Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 391–448. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/yuhfd/issue/73070/1191400
• PL Dawson. (2021). Redirecting... Heinonline.org. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/onej8§ion=12
• Ravaska, J. (2021). Flowchart of the construction phase of a wind farm. Www.theseus.fi. https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/497626
• Ríos, C., Lancha, J. C., & Vicente, M. Á. (2023). Fatigue in Structural Concrete According to the New Eurocode 2. Hormigón Y Acero, 74(299-300), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.33586/hya.2023.3100
• Ryo, E., & Peacock, I. (2021). Represented but unequal: The contingent effect of legal representation in removal proceedings. Law & Society Review, 55(4), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12574
• Sadry, B. N. (2020). The Geotourism Industry in the 21st Century: The Origin, Principles, and Futuristic Approach. In Google Books. CRC Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vK73DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=According+to+the+case
• Santos, A. Q. O., da Silva, A. R., Ledesma, J. J. G., de Almeida, A. B., Cavallari, M. R., & Junior, O. H. A. (2021). Electricity Market in Brazil: A Critical Review on the Ongoing Reform. Energies, 14(10), 2873. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14102873
• Sigalov, K., Ye, X., König, M., Hagedorn, P., Blum, F., Severin, B., Hettmer, M., Hückinghaus, P., Wölkerling, J., & Groß, D. (2021). Automated Payment and Contract Management in the Construction Industry by Integrating Building Information Modeling and Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts. Applied Sciences, 11(16), 7653. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11167653
• Silva, P., Domingo, N., & Naseem, A. (2023). Current knowledge on construction dispute management in New Zealand. Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0167894
• Thomas, M. (2020). Apportioning subcontractors’ liability for project delays; a consensus approach. Bspace.buid.ac.ae. https://bspace.buid.ac.ae/handle/1234/1601
• Tzachor, A. (2019, July 28). Lost in Transitions: Analyzing Sectoral Transitions in Postcolonial Developing Island States, Investigating Theoretical and Practical Gaps in Sustainability Transitions Theory. Discovery.ucl.ac.uk. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10078600/
• Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hoehle, H., & Spohrer, K. (2020). How agile software development methods reduce work exhaustion: Insights on role perceptions and organizational skills. Information Systems Journal, 30(4), 733–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12282
• YJSC BOARD. (2022). VOLUME 2 OF 2 SCHOOL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT CONTRACT MANUAL AND SPECIFICATIONS for the PROJECT NAME: CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL 35 SCHOOL NAME: COMMUNITY SCHOOL 35 Contract 1 -General Construction Contract 2 -Plumbing Work Contract 3 -HVAC Work Contract 4 -Electrical Work YONKERS JOINT SCHOOLS CONSTRUCTION BOARD. http://piazzabrothers.com/ftp/jobs/Yonkers%20New%20Community%20School%2035/Specs-Conformed%20Set/YPS%20CS35_CONFORMED%20SPEC%20-%20Vol%202.pdf
• YUSUF, S. O. (2021). ASSESSMENT OF THE CAUSES AND IMPACT OF INADEQUATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS’ PERFORMANCE IN NIGERIA. Futminna.edu.ng. http://repository.futminna.edu.ng:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/14315
• Zheng, X., Liu, Y., Jiang, J., Thomas, L. M., & Su, N. (2021). PREDICTING THE LITIGATION OUTCOME OF PPP PROJECT DISPUTES BETWEEN PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND PRIVATE PARTNER USING AN ENSEMBLE MODEL. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 22(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2021.13219
• Zizodwa, Z., & Mkhize. (2021). A CASE STUDY: EVALUATION OF ADJUDICATION AS A DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD -NEC AND FIDIC CONTRACTS. https://openscholar.dut.ac.za/bitstream/10321/4324/3/Mkhize_ZZ_2021.pdf