Next one.. AFDDs. Looks like there's a change from High Risk Residential Buildings to Higher-risk buildings (innocuous enough of itself as the definition seems to be similar (18m or 7 storeys and containing 2+ residential units) but the actual definition is indirected to the Building Safety Act and "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing this section.". Does this mean than BS 7671 has become "ambulatory" and it's precise meaning could change at any time without the knowledge or consent of JPEL/64? (or the reader of BS 7671)?

   - Andy.

If a contract depends upon a statute or standard which has yet to be enacted or issued, it would probably be void for uncertainty.

BS 7671 does go out of date, which is why we have amendments (large and small), and new editions.

gkenyon said:

only a court can interpret a Standard. All you can get from anywhere else is an opinion on the meaning.

Yes, a judge will make a judgement which declares the meaning of a provision. However, judges make errors (that is why we have appellate courts and tribunals) and sometimes their judgements are less than clear.

Chris Pearson said:

Yes, a judge will make a judgement which declares the meaning of a provision.

Or interprets the meaning for a particular circumstance.

Chris Pearson said:

However, judges make errors (that is why we have appellate courts and tribunals) and sometimes their judgements are less than clear.

Not sure of the point being made here? Surely it's only the proper course of action.

And of course, clarifying meaning for one circumstance may not help other circumstances.

Just out of curiosity, has there ever (yet) been a case of a court deciding on the correct interpretation of BS 7671?

   - Andy.

AJJewsbury said:

Just out of curiosity, has there ever (yet) been a case of a court deciding on the correct interpretation of BS 7671?

Surely any case where one or more experts provide opinions based on the standard must determine, for the purposes of the case, the veracity of those opinions?

And when opinions provided for both sides provide different interpretations, the experts' opinions must be reconciled somehow?

So, I would say 'yes'.

gkenyon said:

Not sure of the point being made here? Surely it's only the proper course of action.

And of course, clarifying meaning for one circumstance may not help other circumstances.

Regarding the second point, a lawyer would say that the current case may be distinguished from a previous one on the facts.

My point was that judges are not infallible and a particular judgement may be less than clear.

The principle of binding precedent means that lower courts, e.g. the County Court must follow higher ones, i.e. High Court and above. That may be a problem when it comes to interpreting e.g. a High Court judgement.

It's a money-go-round for lawyers!

I suspect not. However, there have been cases where compliance with BS 7671 has been material to contract disputes.

If two experts disagreed, a court might have to choose between one or the other, but they prefer a consensus between experts, or even a joint expert report.

Where is JP?

It all depends what is says in the contract.

You would have to be pretty daft to agree to a contact to supply or do something unknown. A PC sum or provisional sum could be included for an unknown in the contract.

The client  cannot apply a new provision post contract  unilaterally, but can negotiate a change or an addition to the contract after the initial contract which is done frequently in the construction world. 

The Olympics in London  was sold to the government of the day for £5.7b with an out turn cost in excess of £25b. Similar massive increase in costs for Cross Rail. HS2 and defence costs. A case of just another £10 million should fix this problem minister! 

JP

I'm reminded of the yes minister episode about 'the moral dimesnsion' .

"We have looked into every brown envelope and found nothing wrong."

My personal view is by the time folk are saying 'see you in court' the situation has already passed the point of intelligent technical discussion and sensible resolution, the legal process adding neither, and more often than not, every one will end up feeling hard done by.

Except perhaps the barristers.

That said, with the right input information from the right experts, some judges can grasp and rule on remarkably technical stuff, picking up just enough in the time available to decide sensibly. But it is horribly random.
Para 3 of this judgement is a very good case in point and is vaguely electrical.

Mike

Try this link instead

or a better version here

Try this link instead

or a better version here

indeed thanks for the links with the diagrams - and there well may be better examples of well reasoned technical judgements, it just happens I worked alongside Aubrey Sandman (the Plaintiff) at one point about 30 years ago, and so I was more than glancingly familiar with the case. It is also the reason that I will put my initials and a date onto any diagrams I do that I consider important.

The very candid bits I liked were..
... I believe that diagrams of this sort are not readily comprehensible to those who have no experience of them and their interpretation. In effect, they show the interconnection of various electronic components ...

(where perhaps Mr Justice Pumfrey is also finding things not 'readily comprehensible' )and later in regard to how much one circuit is identical to another if the connectivity is the same, but redrawn so the layout changes

.... I have felt considerable doubt over this aspect of the case and my opinion changed more than once in the course of the argument, but in the result I have come to the conclusion that ......

(it is indeed a copy)

Mike.

PS Panasonic lost the court case, but Dr Sandman lost the war, in that Panasonic kept making and the amplifiers without any compensation to him. .....

mapj1 said:

PS Panasonic lost the court case, but Dr Sandman lost the war, in that Panasonic kept making and the amplifiers without any compensation to him. .....

I expect that he could not afford the considerable legal cost of claiming royalties. No conditional fee arrangements in those days!