Working on a claim where the project uses the fidic coc for construction for building and engineering works designed by the employer.
Anyway the contractor submitted an eot and cost claim not in accordance to clause 20.1 of the coc [ie notice of delay should be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the contractor becomes aware, etc].
In this case the contractor seems to have informed offically of the delay to the client 7 months after the event.
As a result of this the client has rejected the claim.
Is there case where the contractor was entitled to a claim even if they did not follow the delay notice clause of the coc ??
Or can earlier correspondences informing of possible delay due to slow down in work be construed also as a ’delay notice’??
rgds
sudharma
Anyway the contractor submitted an eot and cost claim not in accordance to clause 20.1 of the coc [ie notice of delay should be given as soon as practicable, and not later than 28 days after the contractor becomes aware, etc].
In this case the contractor seems to have informed offically of the delay to the client 7 months after the event.
As a result of this the client has rejected the claim.
Is there case where the contractor was entitled to a claim even if they did not follow the delay notice clause of the coc ??
Or can earlier correspondences informing of possible delay due to slow down in work be construed also as a ’delay notice’??
rgds
sudharma