Force Majeure Clauses and Construction Contracts

No voluntary partial payment of a claim based on alleged liability for injury or property damage shall be construed as an admission of fault or liability, or as a waiver or release of claim by the person receiving payment.

Proximate (or legal) causation between the breach of duty and the resultant injury, sometimes called a causal

In this case, force majeure is defined as any event that is beyond Trident’s and its consultant’s control, that may cause delay or prevention of an appropriate performance of any obligation stated in the consent decree. Trident should ensure its best efforts to meets the obligations stated in the consent decree. This includes not only using best effort to predict any potential force majeure event, but also addressing the subsequences of any occurring force majeure and minimizing any potential delay or prevention. It should be noted that increased or unpredicted costs due to Trident’s compliance with the agreement are not considered as force majeure as well as financial issue

“An action for damages for negligence nuisance or breach of duty (whether the duty exists by

Kati has suffered damages to her vehicle from a natural disaster, which occurred under ESC’s liability. This issue is much different as opposed to ‘LOSS OR THEFT’, which was specified by ESC in the exclusion clause. Potentially ESC could choose to argue that the clause should be interpreted using Noscitur a sociss. Doing so may allow ESC to include damages within the exclusion clause and avoid being held liable to repair Kati’s car. However, Kati argument is still effective as it asserts that the exclusion clause did not specifically cover the breach of liability that occurred to her vehicle. This is a valid argument in Kati’s favour as courts commonly interpret exclusion clauses according to their natural and ordinary meaning, as demonstrated in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd. It will also be difficult for ESC to prove that their clause does cover them for damages as during cases of ambiguity, the exclusion clause will be construed against the party relying on the clause. As a result, the clause will be interpreted in Kati’s favour which makes her argument much more compelling. Together, all these factors make ESC’s argument much harder to justify against Kati’s claim, especially since the clause will only cover a breach that has occurred within the scope of a contract, see Council of the City of Sydney v West. In conclusion, it

Included is an observation of the 5 different aspects of the Barker case against Hennessy Industries Inc. for the death of Barker due to an asbestos related illness. Likewise, his death was supposedly caused by a failure to warn Barker of the dangerous possibilities of using Hennessy’s equipment. Barker’s wife filed a suit against Hennessy industries because of her husband’s death and how he used some equipment manufactured by Hennessy industry. The legal issue raised is between strict liability and how Hennessy industries is not liable because their product was not the defective part of the machinery Barker was using (Melvin, 2011). In addition, Kenneth Abraham explains the evolution of no liability to negligence, and now how these have had an effect on the overall tort law (Abraham, 2012). Therefore, the problem of

foreseeability of the damage, «proximity» between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the fact that it was just and reasonable to assume the existence of a duty of care

Imbree v McNeilly [2008] HCA 40 and March v (E & M) Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506:

Appropriate wording of the exclusion clause is essential to assert whether it can cover what has occurred under the contract. Goliath plc 's clause impliedly seeks to exclude liability for any potential negligence and so the Canada Steamship

Similarly, where a plaintiff signs a release (as may be required, for example, before entering a sports competition), for public policy reasons many jurisdictions will apply the release only to conduct which constitutes "ordinary negligence" and not to acts of "gross negligence". The reason for this is quite simple: It is not good public policy to allow a defendant to escape liability for reckless indifference to the safety of others, particularly in contexts where the defendant is responsible for creating unsafe conditions, or is profiting from their existence. Consider, for example, a commercial venture engaged in a high risk recreational activity, such as a company that offers rock climbing tours. If a tour member is injured when safety equipment provided by the company unexpectedly fails, a valid release may protect the company from a lawsuit. However, if the company knows up front that the equipment is defective and uses it anyway, it would not be protected by the release.

Comparatively, Negligence only provides the ‘voluntary assumption of risk’ and ‘contributory negligence’ defences. Under ‘voluntary assumption of risk’, there is opportunity for the

reinsured has granted an indemnity without having reinsurance cover (as the reinsurance contract is voidable). A reinsurer may also rely on a breach of the underlying insured and its failure to disclose material facts to the reinsured. In cases of non-disclosure of an underlying insured, a reinsured may make an ex-gratia payment and therefore, the reinsurer may argue that there is no indemnification. In each situation where reinsurance is voided, the reinsured is left in an unfavourable position, affecting the reinsured’s regulatory capital and solvency position. The UK Act abolishes the avoidance as the sole remedy for a breach of the duty of good faith and provides a range of proportionate remedies that are contingent on the intention of the reinsured. This is similar to the Act, which provides for a remedy proportionate to the failure to comply with a duty of disclosure in relation to general insurance contracts and for life insurance contracts, variation to the terms. Therefore, the UK Act closely aligns with the

Financial cost of construction accidents represent the losses incurred by the private investors, such as contractors, due to the occurrence of

A loss outside the natural cause of events will only be compensated if the exceptional circumstances, which the cause of loss are within the defendants knowledge, when he made the contract.

The research takes a case study approach. The case study analysis dwelt on risk management by Contractors who work on energy and utility construction projects, including strategies and supporting structures for managing risks, complete with an analysis of how these strategies and structures are implemented and supported by the Contractors resources base. The researcher specifically chose utility contractors for this study as the Energy and Utilities sector play an indispensable role in the global economy and in the UK, industry employs around 2% of the UK workforce (AGCAS, 2012). Moreover, the UK government identified the Utilities companies as companies that are heavily involved in risky incidents affecting their sector thus playing a crucial role in the preparation and planning for emergencies responsibilities (UK Government, 2013). According to Yip (2003) construction is risky as it almost always certainly involves loss of time and money. Above all, any denial of service during outage result in impact on communities (Lindman, 2008) and utility services are no exception. Against this background, it could be argued that contractors working on construction projects undoubtedly play a significant role in managing risks in order to stay in business.