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 use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

‘Competitions offer terrible odds for a pretty lean return’

Comment

Well said Murphy. Tellingly, the dilemma of how to get a QS to cost the speculative competition entry pro bono is broached by Emma above...it is unlikely that they would, as the liability is too much. I suspect that the new requirement for costing is driven by the recent Riva v Foster legal case, in which the latter lost and paid £3.6m damages to a client in receipt of a design that cost twice his budget of £100m. This fascinating case, laid out in a judgment running to 100 pages, with the judge invoking fundamental tort law case precedents halfway through (such as the ‘snail in a bottle’ case that is the basis of modern tort law...Donoghue v Stevenson, 1932) should be on the shelves of all architects. A working knowledge of the case is essential for practitioners. It is extraordinary that the architects allowed the dispute to get into the public domain. As for competitions, they are best avoided like the plague, as they are now even more dangerous for your financial health than ever. You will still be sued when your adventurous competition winning design comes in at twice the budget.

Posted date

27 July, 2019

Posted time

12:14 pm

required
required
required
required