Page 2 of 2
Seriously I suggest you get professional advice from someone other than noname and no professional standing (humour)
You mean the same advice you just gave that I gave like 3 posts in, to get profesional advice?
Don't take my advice, but take your advice even though it's the same advice I gave? OMG you really are dumb. English, comprehension, maths. Is there anything else you can screw up so royaly? LOL.
You must have sustained some brain damage when the sky fell on your head one of those times.
Wierd . Editing posts with quotes after they've been posted once stuffs up the quote
Great have that put into the contract...
Pay attention ya numpty. It's already in the contract. Lol
$250/week is more than many negotiate. Probably still inadequate however well done to get that so far!
It's not something by default I negotiated, it was in there already. However, 250 doesn't fully cover our costs so I'll request to have it increased. It's an OK amount, just not enough.
$250/week is more than many negotiate. Probably still inadequate however well done to get that so far!
It's not something by default I negotiated, it was in there already. However, 250 doesn't fully cover our costs so I'll request to have it increased. It's an OK amount, just not enough.
you can try, but expect a generic response in the negative. Considering the current environment, the builder wont put themselves at greater risk of losing more margin if they are delayed. If they do agree, remember they have the ability to vary the contract by up to 5% and you can expect that they will - be careful. What you think might be a win now, may cost you down the track. that 5% variation clause wont go away regardless of which way you land on liquidated damages, but you certainly don't want to give the builder more notice to enact the clause as part of their margin protection strategy..
$250/week is more than many negotiate. Probably still inadequate however well done to get that so far!
It's not something by default I negotiated, it was in there already. However, 250 doesn't fully cover our costs so I'll request to have it increased. It's an OK amount, just not enough.
you can try, but expect a generic response in the negative. Considering the current environment, the builder wont put themselves at greater risk of losing more margin if they are delayed. If they do agree, remember they have the ability to vary the contract by up to 5% and you can expect that they will - be careful. What you think might be a win now, may cost you down the track. that 5% variation clause wont go away regardless of which way you land on liquidated damages, but you certainly don't want to give the builder more notice to enact the clause as part of their margin protection strategy..
It's noted in the HIA contract next to clause 40 that the amount stated is negotiable. I've requested to increase it from $250 to $370 to cover our rent based on the fact that it can be negotiated. I don't think I see anywhere in the contract that if I up the liquidated damages, how that gives them the ability to invoke an increase.
It's noted in the HIA contract next to clause 40 that the amount stated is negotiable. I've requested to increase it from $250 to $370 to cover our rent based on the fact that it can be negotiated. I don't think I see anywhere in the contract that if I up the liquidated damages, how that gives them the ability to invoke an increase.
of course it says its negotiable, it has to - It doesn't mean the negotiation will result in a change. You have a right to request, as much as they have a right to decline. Negotiation completed, legal obligation met.
And there would be nothing in the contract that says they will invoke the increase if you up liquidated damages because that would be an unfair/unconscionable clause and in bad faith. I don't think you understand contracts in general, that's not a criticism, its just an observation.
The reason I'm mentioning the increase clause is to draw your attention to it. Its there. It can be invoked for several reasons. Those reasons are easy to justify and easy to fudge. They don't need any better reason than wanting more money, but can structure the request in a way that legitimises it, which in the current environment is really easy to do. What im highligting to you is is that by putting that extra pressure on them for things like liquidated damages, you are putting yourself in the possible firing line for those clauses to be invoked as away for the builder to protect their margins. Will they/wont they? who knows.
noname are you refering to HIA clause 14 about hidden site conditions? If so, how would the builder fudge this if the site is straightforward with no surprises?
@noname are you refering to HIA clause 14 about hidden site conditions? If so, how would the builder fudge this if the site is straightforward with no surprises?
Clause 14 in the contract I have relates to 'Owner to Supply Documents'. The most I would maybe expect the builder to surprise us with is the amount of rock. The house behind us didn't seem to have much rock at all removed. The house across the road from us look like they did. So that's probably an unfortunate luck of the draw. Other than that, they can expect to find some weeds, perhaps the odd bit of rubbish or building material from neighboring builds, but otherwise, the land is empty.
They have their special conditions which relate to demolition works, power and water etc, but none of that applies to us of course.
How would Method 1 vs Method 2, when considering the possible impact of Covid influenced supply delays, be relevant to a build (if at all).
If there are delays in supply, and Method 1 relies on the stages being actually complete...this (I assume) would extend the build time.
However, because Method 2 doesn't follow the DBCA, the builder can proceed on other parts of the build where they can, but at the potential cost of claiming for stages that are either yet to finish, or even yet to start.