However, the success of each project depends to some extent on the completion of the other projects. While common sense is a very important factor to be taken into account in the interpretation of a contract, a court must reject the natural importance of a provision only because it appears to be a very unwise name for one of the parties to have agreed to it; Some contracts and jurisdictions require written notification of these delays. Some courts do not allow the completion period to be extended if these notices of delay have not been issued. Other courts are more lenient and conclude that if a delay was caused by the owner or if the owner was aware of its existence, written notice is not a prerequisite. When it comes to taking into consideration the essential words to be interpreted, it is accepted that the less clear they are, or in other words, the worse the wording, the better the court may be willing to derogate from their natural meaning; In that regard, the General Court relied on the language of the contract in order to conclude it after examining the arnold/Britton principle. However, it also stressed that this was not a case where it had to ascertain the intention of the parties by looking beyond the treaty, since the ordinary importance of language clearly and unambiguously reflected the intention of the parties. In fact, the court found that even if it had been false, there was no ambiguity in the language, common sense would have supported its construction. The Court of First Instance decided that the defendant`s interpretation of the contract did not correspond to the normal meaning of the words used. He focused too much on the importance of “ownership”, without taking into account the other provisions of the contract and the background, because: – The contract divided the work into four sections. The completion date for Sections 1 to 3 was April 10, 2017 and July 5, 2017 for Section 4. The contract provided for different rates for lump sum damages if the work or a section did not reach practical completion before the corresponding completion date. The usual importance of clause 2.27.1, when interpreted by the contract as a whole, was that the practical completion of the section could be achieved if the work in that section met the criteria of clause 1.1, without all the work being complete, because:- When defining the conditions for concluding the contract, it is important to take into account the construction time and possible delays accurately.
The owner must have a realistic completion plan so that he can accurately plan occupancy, financing, and other expected considerations. While delays and other unforeseen issues may arise during construction, it is likely that owners will easily adjust to new completion dates as long as you keep them informed and have reasonable explanations for delays.. . . .