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