Contractor’s design responsibility in Malaysian traditional and design and build construction contracts: a legal perspective / Abd Hamid Abd Rahman … [et al.]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much as we desire not to have mishaps, we cannot avoid accidents; but we can certainly minimize its occurrence. This is a research in one of the contributing factors to structural failure: the design. It analyses the extent of contractor design responsibility by providing the legal insight into the extent of liability for contractors between two types of procurement contracts in Malaysia: the design and build and traditional methods. The focus of the research is on design liability in torts as this is where the development of the case laws is more pronounced. Selected cases from the UK, Canada, Australia and Singapore show that the courts readily emphasize liability greater on design and build contractor, adopting the higher standard, compared to the exercise of reasonable skill and care for the traditional contractor. Within the setting of the design and build contract, the contractor owes the highest liability, where fit-for-purpose liability is implied even in absence of the contractual provisions. Their liability can extend even to the end user when latent defects manifest themselves by the designer builder. The standard of care expected of the consultant is limited to the exercise of reasonable skill and care, although exceptions arise when fit-for-purpose liability can be transferred by the contractor. The research concludes with the findings that the case law in Malaysia has not developed as extensive as other jurisdictions in the commonwealth, placing uncertainty of direction if ever a case on design failure undertaken by a contractor comes to court. As such, the recommendations are for clear express contractual provisions be made in the standard forms and awareness be raised among the contractors, sub-contractors and the consultants for the design duties and responsibilities to minimize occurrence of structural design failures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".