Employers' Responsibility for Architects' Certifications: The Implied Term That Never Was: Hong Huat and Beyond
Lawrence Kee Wee Teh
Rodyk & Davidson
Philip Chyen Fye Chan
National University of Singapore (NUS) - Department of Building
Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol. 14, p. 275, 2002
In March 2001, the Singapore Court of Appeal handed down its decision in the case of Hiap Hong & Company Pte Ltd v Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd  2 SLR [Singapore Law Reports] 458 ... The central issue that was decided by the Court of Appeal, which is of importance to the construction industry in Singapore, was whether an owner who entered into a building contract with a contractor incorporating the 1970 edition of the Singapore Institute of Architects' Articles and Conditions of Contract ... owed an implied contractual obligation to the contractor to ensure the proper discharge by the architect of his certifying function. ... Now, a legal principle has been established by the Hong Huat Case that owners ... do not owe such an implied term to contractors. This article first sets the Hong Huat Case in the commercial context of building contracts. It then concentrates on the judgment of the High Court ... in the owner's substantive appeal against the arbitration award and the Court of Appeal's judgment on the contractor's appeal against the High Court decision. The legal effect and implications arising out of the Hong Huat Case in relation to owners, contractors and architects will also be examined in the course of this article.
Keywords: Building and construction law, Singapore Institute of Architects' Articles and Conditions of Contract 1970, contract law, implied terms, implied term owed by property owner to contractor to ensure that architect properly discharges certifiying functions, Singapore
JEL Classification: K12Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 4, 2005
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.281 seconds