Can a contractor recover additional cost where late information prevents its planned early completion but not contractual completion?
Not merely because the contractor programmed an earlier finish. Recovery requires a contractual duty or breach causing compensable disruption or cost; the employer does not ordinarily assume an implied duty to make the contractor's unilateral early-completion plan achievable.
A unilateral early-completion programme does not by itself create an employer obligation to support that date
The contractor is free to finish early, but the employer's information duty is defined by the contract. If the early plan was disclosed and incorporated into the bargain, or the contract assesses compensation against an accepted planned-completion date, a claim may arise. Otherwise, the contractor should prove a breach affecting regular progress or causing disruption, not simply loss of the hoped-for saving. Prolongation cost is difficult where the contractor still completes within the priced contract period.
| Issue | Position |
|---|---|
| Unilateral early plan | Does not itself alter the contractual completion obligation |
| Employer awareness at formation | Relevant, but not a substitute for contractual entitlement |
| Accepted programme mechanism | May affect time and cost assessment if the clause says so |
| Disrupted regular progress | May support cost despite no delay to contractual completion |
| Prolongation within priced period | Requires careful proof of actual additional cost |
The rest of this solution is for members
Fifty of the two hundred contractual solutions are free to read. This is one of the remaining hundred and fifty, which Premium and Pro carry.
See what Premium includesAlready a member? Sign in