|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ed73
#68651 Wed, 19 Jan 05 04:30 PM
|
|
Hi MH,
Great to see you are still around at this hour. I would appreciate if you could look into the following short passage:
A Construction Change Directive (CCD) is used in a context where there is an absence or a lack of agreement on the price, or time, or both between the parties to the contract at the time when changes in the Work is directed. Like it or not, a contractor must carry out the directive as required under the contract (AIA 201 4.3.3).
Say at some point in the future, the contractor agrees to the terms after a series of negotiation, the CCD would then become a change order (CO). In the event, say, if the contractor couldn’t agree with the terms decided by the owner or architect, then the contractor could recourse the dispute to mediation (4.5). (A Contractor must not stop or threaten to stop work.)
A contractor who refuses to carry out the changes in Work as directed by the owner or architect may be guilty of anticipatory breach of the contract, thus giving the owner grounds to terminate for cause. |
|
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Mon, Oct 11 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anon1
#68881 Thu, 20 Jan 05 04:46 PM
|
|
Hi,
Not sure I fully understood your intent.
A Construction Change Directive (CCD) is used in a context where there is an absence or a lack of agreement in the contract on the price, or time, or both between the parties. A contractor must carry out the directive as required under the contract (AIA 201 4.3.3).
[How does a CCD differ from a CO? I don't understand the difference between the two terms.]
For example, after the contractor agrees to the terms after a series of negotiation, the CCD would then become a change order (CO). In the event, say, if the contractor did not agree with the terms decided by the owner or architect, then the contractor would have recourse to mediation (4.5). A Contractor must not stop or threaten to stop work.
A contractor who refuses to carry out the Changes in Work [new term?] as directed by the owner or architect may be guilty of anticipatory breach of the contract, and thus giving the owner grounds to terminate for cause. [That--termination--might be a preferable outcome as opposed to carrying out the directive. If I were an owner or architect, I would want termination PLUS damages.]
MountainHiker
|
|
|
|
|
Joined on
Fri, Jul 2 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|