26th April 2006, 01:59 PM
Thanks 1m1d
When I first glanced through the contract it appeared to be suitable for situations when an archaeological contractor was employed directly by a developer, but potentially more problematic when the contractor was procured by, and through, a consultant on behalf of the developer. Any views on this ?
I'm nor sure as to the wisdom of curators stipulating the use of this contract in briefs or WSIs - is the contractual position between a developers and their agents any business of the curator ? OK so it is in the interests of the curator to be satisfied that the programme of archaeological works will be carried through to its full conclusion, but that can be addressed through other mechanisms. The contractual relationship between a contractor and a developer is a matter for the two parties and to a great extent it is a confidential matter.
Beamo
When I first glanced through the contract it appeared to be suitable for situations when an archaeological contractor was employed directly by a developer, but potentially more problematic when the contractor was procured by, and through, a consultant on behalf of the developer. Any views on this ?
I'm nor sure as to the wisdom of curators stipulating the use of this contract in briefs or WSIs - is the contractual position between a developers and their agents any business of the curator ? OK so it is in the interests of the curator to be satisfied that the programme of archaeological works will be carried through to its full conclusion, but that can be addressed through other mechanisms. The contractual relationship between a contractor and a developer is a matter for the two parties and to a great extent it is a confidential matter.
Beamo