A contract is concluded and a new contract is concluded in its place. In the construction industry, the term “Novation” is generally used for the use of the same form of contract (i.e. the designation of the advisor) with a change of party, i.e. the employer is replaced by the contractor. Innovations are used in design and construction projects to allow the contractor to follow in the employer`s footsteps with respect to the consultants employed by the employer in the initial phase of the project. The advantage of innovative advisors for the contractor is that it always allows employers to fully control the design in the initial phase, but ultimately assigns the employer individual responsibility for the final design of the final project in the form of the contractor. Before considering the two new forms, it may be beneficial to quickly remember the Blyth-Blyth decision. The case concerned a design and construction project in which Blyth-Blyth (the advisor) was transferred to Carillion (the contractor). At the end of the project, Blyth-Blyth sued Carillion for a fee and Carillion for damages for infringement. These service-related offences were carried out prior to the innovation, and the judge ruled that Carillion was not authorized to recover his losses from Blyth-Blyth.
The recent publication of two new standard innovations has led to great confusion in the management of innovation in the construction industry. In the CLLS form guidelines, it is known as “a simple document adaptable to a wide range of different contexts and to the different forms of standard forms and tailored consulting agreements that exist on the market.” It is certainly a simple document with only 3 clauses. The first clause concerns innovation itself and the second and third with the jurisdiction or the rights of third parties. The CLLS form also recognizes that this may be a problem, but they have established their form on the basis that the services of the appointment of the advisor have been carefully reviewed in advance to eliminate any those that may be incompatible with the contractor who replaced the employer after the renovation. This issue has also been highlighted in Blyth and Blyth. Carillion had attempted to argue that he should be replaced by “the employer with respect to all pre-innovation services. However, some of them would not have made sense if the term “employer” had simply been replaced by the word “contractor” (for example). B with respect to employer assistance services for the designation of a contractor).
On this basis, if a consultant is appointed for a project with traditional purchases in mind, which will then be modified in design and construction, the services should be examined very carefully when the CLLS form is used. However, if an innovation has been agreed from the outset, it will be much clearer to ensure that services are adequate from the outset, as provided by the CLLS form. These two forms are a long way to go to resolve the problems raised by the Blyth-Blyth case. They are easy to use and come with useful instructions. However, opinions on the treatment of Blyth and Blyth are clearly broad and varied (standard forms have two different approaches). Many bespoke innovation agreements will address these issues differently. Some will address the Blyth-Blyth issues by simply including a guarantee from the contractor`s advisor that he has fulfilled all of his obligations and obligations arising from the appointment prior to the renewal date, coupled with the advisor`s confirmation that he will execute the order as if the contractor had participated in the appointment instead of the employer and had always been.