Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nama: Ridwan Budiarjo NRP: 3114100027 The Answer of Review Questions of Chapter 12
Nama: Ridwan Budiarjo NRP: 3114100027 The Answer of Review Questions of Chapter 12
NRP : 3114100027
THE ANSWER OF REVIEW QUESTIONS OF CHAPTER 12
1. Discuss the premise that the owner has an inherent or implied right to make reasonable
changes in a project ?
Answer : The owner does not have an inherent or implied right to make unilateral
changes to the contract. That right must be obtained contractually. When an owner makes
a change to the contract, the contract time and amount may or may not be affected. In
most instances changes tend to increase the amount but do not generally include an
extension in the time. Changes are often referred to or interpreted as extras. The owner
has the right to make change within the general scope of the contract, the contractor is
obligated to perform the work necessitated by the change, the change must be in written
form and must be signed, an adjustment to the contract price and/or contract duration will
be assessed by some means or can be predetermined.
2. What is a cardinal change? What are the risks to an owners representative who
authorizes a cardinal change? What are the risks to a contractor who permorms the work
required for a cardinal change?
Answer : Changes which are not covered in typical changes clauses. The owners
representative who authorizes a cardinal change should make a new agreement, if the
contractor protests and subsequently is successful in having the change declared cardinal,
damages may be claimed for the owners breach of the contract. The contractor would be
the party claiming a cardinal change when the method of performance is changed
appreciably and to the contractors detriment, the change may cause the contractor to use
up or exceed the firms bonding limits.
3. It is common for contracts to stipulate that changes in the work be authorized in wirting
by someone in authority. Under what conditions might a verbal change be considered
valid?
Answer :
- Should not have been anticipated
- Should not have been anticipated
- Was mpt open to observation
- Could not be discovered until work under the contract was undertaken
- In emergency conditions, courts regularly state that the written requirements can be
waived