The FIDIC form is different from the JCT and NEC forms, which expressly provide for payment when materials are delivered off-site: when designing or revising the contract in which manufacturing is to take place off-site, you should take into account the following: for any legal matter, see off-site goods and materials – legal issues. Clause 2.22 of the JCT 2016 (DB) which provides that, when a payment is made under the contract relating to the value of the off-site materials, the materials are passed to the property of the customer, although the delivery has not taken place. This clause is “not used” in the SBCC version of the contract. Under Scottish law, a construction contract cannot be considered a contract of sale and, as a general rule, this contract is treated in such a way that the customer detaches a separate contract for the purchase of materials by the contractor (or, where applicable, by the subcontractor), so that the materials are no longer part of his contract. Note that this goes beyond a simple investment certificate which is not enough in Scotland to pass the title. In other words, it is not possible to impose a provision in a construction contract under Scottish law that the property passes on payment for the materials concerned without delivery. In a perfect world, items would be delivered to the site before payment and fixed in the field, but if this is not possible, a judgment is necessary to assess the risk to the project or the potential loss to the customer against the cost of guaranteeing absolute security with regard to the goods outside the site. The contract contained certain provisions relating to the transfer of ownership of goods to VVB prior to their delivery to the site. To this end, Optilan should issue certificates of unwaveringness to confirm the transfer of ownership. However, Optilan set an additional condition in the certificates by finding that the transfer of ownership would take place with the “receipt of interim payment” for the goods.
Optilan has correct claims. VVB, however, had a counterclay against Optilan`s claim on the value of the product. Therefore, VVB issued a “Pay Less” communication concerning Optilan`s claim.1 According to VVB, as stated in its “Pay Less” communication, Optilan was not liable for a net amount, but ownership of the goods had been transferred even though it had not made actual cash payment for the goods. Most standard construction contracts and the general terms and conditions of the parties explicitly refer to the so-called retention of title clauses. In principle, a retention of title clause provides that ownership of the goods will only be transferred to the buyer/employer when certain conditions are met, which is usually the case when payment has been made. Otherwise, it is assumed that with delivery, ownership will be transferred to the buyer/employer for payment reasons.. . .