Q This assignment illustrates ENBU820 – Law for Construction Management for Supervision of labour and materials Home, - ENBU820 – Law for Construction Management ENBU820 – Law for Construction Management As imperative from the facts of the case along with Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of the Construction Contracts Act of 2002, a payment claim must be made in a written format and also must be in adherence to the work details outlined in the respective construction contract. Additionally, the relevant timeframe pertaining to the payment as far as the activities of the construction project are concerned must also be specified accordingly. If the amount for payment along with the details of the work is provided in a proper and appropriate manner, then such kind of a claim pertaining to payment as observed from the facts of the case is valid. The key aspect in this regard is that the costs of the materials to be incorporated in the in the claim pertaining to payment in order to capitulate upon the fact that the payment claim amounts to 1.11 million dollars in total. In accordance with Clause 12.2 of the construction contract as implied from the facts of the case, five business days from the date when the payment claim is issued would be the period with regard to the issuance of payment schedule accordingly. It is imperative from the facts of the case that within five business days Rugby Heaven issued a payment schedule after the issuance of payment claim by the contractor Precarious Contracting Limited. As a result, it is imperative that the payment schedule was served on due date on part of Rugby Heaven which was on 21st February 2019 as a result of the issuance of the payment claim on 15th February 2019. As a result, the facts of the case imply that the time was maintained with regard to the issuance of payment schedule after the issuance of the payment claim in the desired manner (Ramachandra & Rotimi, 2015). Since it is not mentioned anywhere in the payment schedule about the manner in which the calculation has been done with regard to the scheduled amount being less than the claimed amount, such payment schedule by Grant is not valid as far as Section 21 of the Construction Contracts Act of 2002 is concerned. Additionally, the rationale behind the making of a nil payment schedule cannot also be inferred from the payment schedule by Grant. The reason with regard to the withholding of the payment for Precarious Contracting Limited has also not been presented in a proper and appropriate manner (Loosemore, Lim, Ling & Zeng, 2018). The information pertaining to the construction project is inadequately presented in the payment schedule by Grant with regard to the validity of the payment schedule as per the relevant provisions enshrined and envisaged in the Construction Contracts Act of 2002. The scheduled amount of nil would be a valid payment schedule if the requirements stipulated by Section 21 of the Construction Contracts Act of 2002 are met in a proper and appropriate manner. It further implies that the appropriate reasons must be set out with regard to the aspect pertaining to the payment schedule of nil as implied form the payment schedule by Grant with reference to the facts of the case (Lim & Loosemore, 2017). It is imperative that since the reason for making a nil payment schedule has not been presented in an effective and efficient manner, then such a payment is not valid as far as Section 21 of the Construction Contracts Act of 2002 is concerned. Such a payment schedule must be invalidated at the earliest since it implies a lack of detailed reasoning with regard to nil payment schedules as far as the payment claim made by Precarious Contracting Limited is concerned. The exception pertaining to Act of God is applicable with regard to the aspect pertaining to extension of time as far as bad weather is concerned as imperative form the facts of the case. As a result, it is imperative that the aspect pertaining to bad weather implies a naturally occurring event which is beyond the control of a normal human (Yung & Rafferty, 2015). As a result, delays in construction project are inevitable due to bad weather as far as rains are concerned thereby leading to a total washout of the construction site as imperative form the facts of the case. It is therefore recommended that extension must be granted as a means of compensation as far as the aspect of mitigation is concerned in the interest of fairness with regard to the completion of the construction project in an effective and efficient manner as far as the desired outcomes are concerned. A notice of extension must be prepared and formulated by Esteem Developments Limited in accordance with the rules pertaining to civil procedure applicable accordingly as per the territorial jurisdiction of the respective legislation. The reasons pertaining to the extension of time must be incorporated and properly explained in the notice of extension as far as the aspect of inaccessibility of the site due to bad weather is concerned. It would help Esteem Developments Limited to capitulate upon its claim pertaining to compensation for delays due to bad weather in a proper and appropriate manner thereby leading to comprehensive solutions (Bailey, 2016). If the contract implies the specified timeframe for making such kind of notice of claim, then any claim made after such a time frame would result in vehement rejection accordingly. As a result, the concept pertaining to the procedure regarding the extension of time is demonstrated accordingly. Since there was a stoppage of work for whole August due to bad weather thereby resulting in the washout of the construction site, the extension of time for one week is not enough with regard to the construction project in a proper and appropriate manner as far as the outcomes pertaining to quality are concerned. Such a period of extension is quite unreasonable and unfair with regard to the construction work being carried out by Esteem Developments Limited (Halligan, 2017). As result, it is imperative that Esteem Developments Limited is entitled for the extension of time for more than one week in order to achieve the desired results of the construction project. Additionally, with regard to the notice of claim pertaining to revised works, it is to be seen what benefits the revised works may attract in order to capitulate upon the aspect pertaining to extension of one week. Since the damage has been caused due to rains which implies Act of God, Esteem Developments Limited is not entitled to claim compensation for time related costs as far as claiming of amount is concerned. Additionally, there has been no breach of contract on part of the principal Shop Smarter (Burr, 2016). However, extension of time has to be granted to Esteem Developments Limited in a proper and appropriate manner taking account of the exception pertaining to Act of God as far as the delays caused by bad weather with reference to the completion of the construction project is concerned in an effective and efficient manner taking account of the three stages involved in the project as implied by the facts of the case. As a result, the compensation in terms of amount cannot be awarded to Esteem Developments Limited. A variation order implies the alteration of works pertaining to the construction contract in question. Since it is implied form the facts of the case that there has been a change pertaining to the conditions with regard to the construction project, the aspect pertaining to variation is justified and appropriate with regard to the outcomes of the construction project in the desired manner as far as the benefits are concerned (Murray, 2017). Such a kind variation is also valid in construction contracts if it is backed up by a valid consideration as implied by the facts of the case. Express terms form one of the basic requirements as far as construction contracts are concerned in order to capitulate upon the aspect pertaining to variation in an effective and efficient manner. Additionally, the aspect of the variation order must be presented in such a manner so that it is easy to understand for the contractor concerned. The aspect pertaining to the valuation of variations can be determined as per the rates provided by the contractor with regard to the tender as far as the processes are concerned. The aspects pertaining to the work along with the conditions of the work should not be different in such aspects as far as the respective construction project is concerned. The agreement between the client and the contract drafted and accordingly executed would play key roles with regard to the valuation in terms of variation as far as the monetary benefits of the construction project are concerned (Gransberg & Scheepbouwer, 2015). The consent of the contractor is essential with regard to the valuation of variations pertaining to the construction project in question. The price of the construction contract also plays a vital role as far as the aspect pertaining to valuation of variations is concerned. If it implies that the omission of the car park would lead to the better outcomes of the construction project as far as financial benefits are concerned, then the aspect pertaining to the omission of the car park is justified as far as the alteration of the scope of work pertaining to the variation order is justified and appropriate. However, the views and opinions of the contractor are the key aspects as far as the omission of the car park is concerned. It would help in the capitulation upon the variation order pertaining to the omission of the car park in a proper and appropriate manner (Turner & Riding, 2015). Additionally, it is also to be seen whether the omission of the car park would actually result in profits in the long run. Since it was not informed by Shop Smarter to Esteem Developments Limited with regard to the tendering of the aspect pertaining to the construction of car park to Risky Business Contractors, such an aspect is not valid since Shop Smarter had already obtained a variation order with regard to the omission for the works pertaining to the construction of the car park. As a result, it is imperative that Shop Smarter has acted in blatant breach of contract accordingly with regard to deception of Esteem Developments Limited to a huge extent. It also contravenes the aspect pertaining to fairness with regard to contract.