Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

SFA/99 playing field tilts against bad payers

  • Comment

Sue Lindsey (Letters, AJ 29.7.99) continues to miss the point. Clearly my clients' solicitors were not concerned about the payment provisions which are now in sfa/99 because they bite only bad payers. The playing field is tilted only against them. Objection by a client to these provisions may give the architect a valuable insight into a client's attitude towards payment.

As to evolving terms, does Lindsey really believe architects should offer contracts which ignore cdm Regulations 1994, the Arbitration Act 1996, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, and the New Civil Procedure Rules, all of which came into force since sfa/92 was published?

Stephen Yakely, London N1

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.