Urgent! Tort/Contract Problem Question!Watch
A is a big corporation.
B is a construction firm.
C is an architect.
D is a firm of structural engineers.
B builds (based entirely on D's plans) defective extension to A's fancy office building. Defective extension renders fancy office building unsafe.
However, A was originally advised by D that the extension (as planned by D) would be safe.
It is then made explicit that B and C have not acted negligently (at all.)
D claims that it might be able to avoid liability due to limitations signed by A and D in the original contract:
A shall pay D £1,200,000 to design extension.
Neither shall have any remedy in respect of any statements/representations(innocent or negligent) made prior to the signing of this contract. Nothing in this clause shall limit or exclude any liability for fraud.
Without prejudice to clause 2, and except in respect of death or personal injury caused by the Contractor’s negligence, the Contractor’s total liability for any one claim or for the total of all claims arising from any breach of this contract by the Contractor shall not exceed a multiple of 20 times the Contract Price as stated in clause 1.
Though: D admits that when original plans were drawn, it 'could not get enough testing done' on A's fancy office building, and had to rely only on original structural plans (though this is referred to by D as 'common practice'). D then advised A that the extension would be fine anyway. (N.B. There was no formal contract for this survey.)
'ADVISE D WHAT POTENTIAL LIABILITIES IT FACES, BOTH AS A COMPANY, AND FOR ITS DIRECTORS INDIVIDUALLY.'