So, an architect forgets to draw control joints and points to a general boilerplate language that mentions control joints but nothing else. Somehow this ends bypasses not only the architect who was on-site weekly for a year, the General Contractor and gets laid completely at the feet of the subcontractor as being their fault. What’s worse is a nearly identical school was started 6 months earlier and they are trying to do the same thing to that subcontractor. No responsibility, nada, zip, none, nothing, not so much as a peep from either the GC or the architect as to their responsibilities.
You might also like
In some trades this is probably an easy call but in others such as Masonry, EIFS etc often times the weather/air/vapor barrier design and install is FAR beyond any realistic expectation of a correct install. When a GC attempts to cover themselves with such language are they and others really relieved of responsibility?
This and other similarly worded clauses seem to be finding their way into contracts for all trades. It provides for the GC to repo all equipment (everything from trucks, tools etc) on-site as well as on their way to the job-site. It is understandable if the tool was created specifically for that particular job but […]
Specifically the architect had this paragraph in his spec. Special Aggregate: Provide units made with aggregate matching aggregate in Architect’ssample. In other words it could only be one product.