System designer contract
![system designer contract system designer contract](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/283108331_Rethinking_contract_design_Why_incorporating_non-legal_drivers_of_contractual_behavior_in_contracts_may_lead_to_better_results_in_complex_defense_systems_procurement/links/56b668d008ae3c1b79ad488b/largepreview.png)
This scenario was that of Edward Lindenberg v Joe Canning, Jerome Contracting Ltd (1992). Who is to blame for the damage, the architect or the builder? The walls are removed and the flat above collapses as the walls were in fact load bearing. Certain internal walls are marked as non-load bearing and for removal. The contract makes no reference to the contractor having any design responsibility. The contractor obtains drawings from the architect to remodel a flat. However, it is important to note that despite a fitness for purpose obligation, if there is any design responsibility by a third party affecting the obligation to deliver the fit for purpose building, if that design fails it will negate the fitness for purpose obligation as per PSC Freyssinet Ltd v Bryne Brothers (Formwork) Ltd 1996. The leading cases on fitness for purpose are IBA v EMI Electronics Ltd (1980) and Greaves Contractors Ltd v Baynham Meikle & Partners (1975).
![system designer contract system designer contract](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/flevy10e2previewpdf3718-120611152737-phpapp01/95/flevycom-sample-consulting-contract-1-728.jpg)
That duty is a much higher obligation than simply designing, where an Architect would be obliged to take reasonable skill and care. Where the contractor is given design responsibility, in the absence of an express term to the contrary, it is implied that the contractor has an absolute duty to provide a building that is “fit for purpose”. A contractor has the duty to provide a ‘fit for purpose’ building In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) it was held that what is expected of a designer is that of a higher standard of skill related to his professed expertise than that of an ordinary man. Where design is concerned there is an implied term that in the absence of an express term, the designer will use reasonable skill and care, but not that of an ordinary man. The employer, when appointing a designer, will expect the building to operate, when complete, in the manner envisaged, thus when the building fails the employer will question the integrity of the design or alternatively quality of the work done by the builder. This is a common dispute situation as the resultant costs of putting right the problems will be charged to the offender. The contractor is likely to blame the architect or engineer with the proposition that the architect or engineer has an absolute responsibility for the design and should have produced a design that works, if it is wrong, they are to blame. The architect or engineer is likely to blame the builder with the proposition that the contractor has an implied obligation to point out a design problem and failed to do so further there are implied obligations to carry out work satisfactorily with “reasonable skill and care” and “fit for purpose”, by executing work that was clearly wrong it is the contractor’s fault and liability. The architect, the engineer, the contractor or another?
![system designer contract system designer contract](https://www.govconwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/BAE-Lands-164M-Navy-Contract-to-Design-Vertical-Launch-System-Components-768x401.png)
However, are there additional implied terms that can be argued, whether the contract is clear or not, on who has design responsibility? Arbicon explains When a design failure occurs who is responsible for the resultant damage? However, a user may be confused by an interface that sometimes gives preference to objects, sometimes to functions.If a building contract tells you in black and white who has design responsibility and for what part, it should be easy to direct the liability when it all goes wrong. The system designer may benefit from having three principles of ordering when modelling a system. Other object-oriented methods give guidelines for designing function-oriented interfaces without relating these guidelines to the model. A computer system designed by means of an object-organized method may therefore obtain an interface that is partially object-ordered and partially function-ordered. A function-ordered interface can be derived from the subject-ordered model. However, other guidelines in JSD support subject-order. Jackson System Development (JSD), an object-ordered model is produced, and the user interface that can be derived from the model is object-ordered too. The conditions for selecting either of the two approaches are, however, not discussed here.īy means of an object-ordered method, e.g. ways that are compatible to the corresponding distinction in programming. Object and function-order are used to define the two approaches to modelling information systems and in human-computer interaction, in. In addition, when modelling information systems, there is a third principle of ordering, ‘subject-order’. A general way of contrasting the object-oriented to the function-oriented approach, called ‘object-order’ and ‘function-order’, is proposed in this paper.