CONFIDENTIAL AP/QSM507/BQS507

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

CENTRE OF STUDIES FOR QUANTITY SURVEYING

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND SURVEYING

CONSTRUCTION LAW II (QSM507/BQS507)

COURSEWORK 1

Instructions:

a) This is a group assignment consisting of five (5) or six (6) members.

b) The submission should be in the form stated in the tasks by using good English.
c) Each member of the group shall be part of the group’s video presentation.
d) Issue: Week 2 and Submission: Week 4

COURSEWORK 1

THE TASK - Groups are required to prepare a PowerPoint slide video presentation containing the
following:

The group to analyse the following law case by explaining the reasons behind your solutions on the
given issues with reference to the relevant Clauses in the Construction Contract and Sections in the
Contract Act 1950:

The Plaintiffs, comprising of a group of some twenty-three (23) consultants from various
disciplines in the construction industry, were involved in the setting up and construction of a
second campus for the Defendant, Universiti Teknologi MARA (“UiTM”). The Plaintiffs claimed
they had rendered consultancy services in respect of the property for which they were yet to be
paid. This was denied by the Defendant who took the position that it had no privity of contract
with any of the Plaintiffs; that the claim was time-barred; that the Plaintiffs in any case had been
paid for services rendered; and that there was no loss proved. The Defendant appointed AS
Contractor as the main contractor for the said project. AS Contractor then had appointed the
Plaintiff as the main consultant vide Lead Consultant’s Agreement on 23 September 2002. The
Plaintiff appointed and engaged the services of several consultants to assist the Plaintiff in the
completion of the project via various sub consultant agreements. The Plaintiff was to be paid
once AS Contractor was paid. The Plaintiff was to be paid 100% of the consultancy fee upon
settlement of the final accounts between AS Contractor and the Defendant. This arrangement
however did not come to pass. It was subsequently decided that the project would be
implemented in phases. For that, the Defendant and AS Contractor entered into 3 separate
formal contracts based on JKR Standard Form of Design & Build/Turnkey Contract (PWD Form
DB/T edisi 2002). The contracts related to the construction of the infrastructure works for
Satellite A and B. None of those contracts involved Satellite C. Subsequently, the remainder of
the project was implemented using a different mechanism awarded to parties that did not
involve the Plaintiff. This meant that the Plaintiff would not be paid full fees. The Plaintiff thus
approached the Defendant for payment and the Defendant took the position that it did not owe
the Plaintiff for the simple reason that there was no contractual relationship between itself and
the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff thus filed the present claim. The issues arising for determination were:
(1) whether there was a legally binding contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (ii)
whether the Plaintiff was entitled to claim herein against the Defendant for all works completed
pursuant to Section 71 of the Contract Act 1950.

(20 marks)

END OF TASK