Jayalath, C and Perera, B A K S (2022) Exploring a shared comprehension between judicial approaches and scholar views pertaining to concurrent delays. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(3), pp. 400-412. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
The topicality of concurrent delays has been accentuated by the fact that contractors use it as a sword to claim extension of time while employers use it as a shield to refrain from paying prolongation costs. The law has been offering a series of differing solutions and scholars too have opposing views. The aim of this research is to gauge the level of unanimity between two perspectives if any and establish a shared comprehension via a comparative literature survey. A total of 36 prominent authorities and opinion of 36 scholars were closely examined to measure views held by judiciary and industry experts using dialogue mapping. The evidence indicates that there is a rife in perception. However, dominant cause approach has been found to be widely topical over a century. The results revealed 10 key attributes of court decisions and 10 shared conceptions among the scholars. The emerging trend across the judicial opinion is to give emphasis on the wordings of the contract.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | causation; concurrent delays; dominant cause |
| Index terms: | key attribute, survey, judiciary, evidence, mapping |
| Subjects: | spatial and geospatial analysis, risk assessment, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, legal systems |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here