DIGEST | ISSUE 21MITIGATIONIt should also be noted that a contractor has a duty tomitigate its damages and hence find alternative uses forIdling Plant where available. In the Phoenix Bridge11 caseit was highlighted that if a contractor can hire or use IdlingPlant during a delay period and elects not to do so, it wouldthen be difficult to recover damages based on a hire value.EQUIPMENT RATE MANUALSThere are popular equipment rate manuals available forreference such as the RICS Schedule and AGC12 EquipmentCost Guide. Anyone using such manuals should thoroughlyread and understand the manuals when using them to assistin calculating the components relating to Plant ownershiprate and/or a hire rate and determining Plant operating costs.However, the application of published guides is limited to apricing exercise and is not always appropriate for a damagesassessment for costs of delay.CONCLUSIONIn order to succeed with a claim for Idling Owned-Plantbased on hire value, a contractor will need to be able to:1.2.Prove that the Idling Owned-Plant could have been hiredout, or that it would have been used on other work butfor delay; andShow that a reasonable hire rate has been demonstrated.It is not usually appropriate to simply use commercial pricingsources as proof of loss. It is necessary to demonstrate theactual loss which, more often than not, will comprise actualrecorded items such as depreciation and finance relatedcosts.1.Plant as used by the builder or contractor in constructionwork may be divided into two classes: 1. Small and nonmechanical plant and tools 2. Power-driven mechanicalplant, which consists of such plant as lorries, backhoeloaders, concrete mixers, compressors, cranes, excavators,dumpers, tractors, rollers, etc.2. FIDIC Sub-Cl.1.1.4.33. Bailey, Julian. Construction Law 11.1314. Alfred McAlpine Homes North Ltd v Property & LandContractors Ltd (1995) 76 BLR 59.5. 1980 Edition, clause 26.6. Sunley & Co Ltd v Cunard White Star Ltd [1940] 1 K.B. 740.7. Converse et al. v. U.S8. Cotton et al. v. U.S.9. Bahen & Wright, Inc. v. United States, 94 C. Cls. 356, 360,361, 36510. Laburnum Construction Corporation (1964) 163 Ct. Cl. 339.11. Phoenix Bridge Co. v. United States, 86 C. Cls. 603, 63112. The associated General Contractors of America Contractors4243
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
