The JCT code, uncovered

James Davison has lived and breathed the new set of standard JCT contracts. The Cyril Sweett associate, a non-practising barrister who has been at the firm for two years, has spent the best part of this summer encamped in a library researching the significance of the new suite of documents, which are used in around 90% of construction contracts. Davison’s hard-earned labours will provide a result – a new book called JCT: What’s New? will be published by RICS Books in December, just in time for when he believes the new contracts will start to be used on real projects.

Davison stresses the results of the exercise will not be simply an academic tome. “Less about why they made the changes, more about the consequences of the changes. It’s very much a practitioner’s book,” he explains. As well as general introductions to the contracts the book will also have a tabular form which will explain each clause, summarise the change to the 1998 version of the document, explain the consequences and lists the actions needed by each party in response.

Davison’s book covers four of the new contracts, the ones he says are most frequently used in the industry: the standard building contract; the design and build form; the intermediate contracts; and the minor works form. “It was the maximum I could do given the turnaround time I had,” he explains.

A second volume might follow which will cover the newer contracts, such as partnering agreements and framework deals.

Davison largely backs the changes and additions, signalling particular praise for the way it handles an oft-held complaint against legal contracts – the use of arcane and opaque language. “The English is much improved,” he says. “It’s kicked out a lot of the legalese, the sub clauses of sub clauses. It’s now modern business English.”

It’s kicked out a lot of the legalese, the sub clauses of sub clauses

He thinks the clarity of the contracts are a great strength. “If you get in to a jam you can get to a clause a lot more quickly. There is less potential for clauses to be blank (see summary) so you will have a better chance of knowing what position you are in.”

Two concerns, or missed opportunities as Davison puts them, are the lack of a definition of practical completion and the failure to cater for the novation of design teams to the contractor in a design and build contract.

His conclusions on the most important concerns from the industry – will it be more expensive and take longer to sign the contracts? – are largely reassuring. “We shouldn’t see a percentage uplift (in costs) as a result of the new forms,” he says. In fact he says that given there is more standardisation in the contracts on issues such as warranties it could speed up the process. An added reason for fewer delays could be if the process is done electronically, he adds. “If they work like the demonstration disc I used it will go very clearly and quickly.”