Upscale_ Legal’s Post

Delhi High Court Clarifies Nature of Pre-Arbitration Procedures The Delhi High Court recently ruled that any pre-condition in an Arbitration Agreement requiring the parties to exhaust amicable resolution avenues or engage in conciliation is directory rather than mandatory. This decision emerged from a petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concerning a contract for railway line construction in Andhra Pradesh, which faced significant delays and disputes over penalties and payments. The Hon’ble Court found that the respondent failed to appoint a Conciliator or form a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) within the stipulated time frame. Given the urgent nature of the disputes, the Hon’ble Court deemed it unreasonable to compel the parties to undergo conciliation or DAB proceedings prior to arbitration. This ruling emphasizes the need for timely adjudication in disputes, particularly in construction contracts where delays can lead to financial repercussions. Furthermore, the Court determined that the contract's appointment procedure for the Arbitrator did not meet legal requirements, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator to address the disputes. This decision reinforces the principle that while amicable resolutions are encouraged, they should not hinder the timely resolution of urgent disputes. #DelhiHighCourt #Arbitration #LegalUpdate #ContractLaw #DisputeResolution #Conciliation #IndianLaw #ConstructionLaw #LegalReform

𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦 Aryavrat Tollways Pvt Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corp Ltd (Del HC, 22.07.2024) Relevant Facts: 1. A had certain disputes with M and S under a tri-partite agreement. 2. The tri-partite agreement had an arbitration clause with the seat of arbitration as Delhi. 3. A invoked arbitration clause and preferred the present Section 11 petition before the HC. 4. M contended that the principle contract between A and M is a concession agreement under which the arbitration would be held before an arbitral tribunal appointed by a statutory body under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Issue: The issue before the court was whether to give priority to the arbitration clause provided under the tri-partite agreement or the concession agreement. Held: The court while allowing the petition held that: 1. The priority clause in the concession agreement provided that in case of any conflict, the concession agreement would prevail over all other documents forming part of the concession agreement. Admittedly, the tri-partite agreement was not part of the concession agreement. 2. The priority clause in the tri-partite agreement expressly provided that in case of conflict, the tri-partite agreement would prevail over the concession agreement. 3. In light of the above interpretations, the court held that since the disputes have been raised under the tri-partite agreement, the arbitration would be held as per the arbitration clause in the tri-partite agreement. My views: This judgment throws light on the proper interpretation of different priority clauses that may be enshrined in various documents executed between the same parties regarding a project. Although the present case was in respect of the appointment of an arbitrator, the same principle can also be extended to the interpretation of contracts for a construction project or construction claim. #arbitration #indianlaw #constructionlaw #constructionindustry #constructionlitigation #projectmanagement #claimmanagement #contractmanagement

𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐨𝐧-𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 The Delhi High Court ruled that a non-signatory can be included in arbitration if there is a contractual relationship making them responsible for obligations towards the claimant, beyond being part of the same group of companies. This case involved disputes between RBCL Piletech Infra (Petitioner) and Bholasingh Jaiprakash Construction Ltd. (BJCL), arising from a Work Order, with NTPC and BHEL also implicated. Despite NTPC's non-response and BHEL's opposition, the Petitioner sought an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. The court noted that while Clause 33 of the BJCL-BHEL contract didn't justify including BHEL in arbitration, Clauses 21 and 28, tying the Petitioner's payment to BJCL's receipt from BHEL, did. NTPC had no direct contractual responsibility to the Petitioner, but its inclusion could be argued before the arbitral tribunal. The court appointed Anant V. Palli as the arbitrator, referencing Supreme Court rulings that support including non-signatories involved in interconnected agreements aimed at a common goal. By Akshith Sainarayan #delhihc #arbitration #arbitrationlaw #commerciallaw #tcclr #ACAct

Unsure of the Best Dispute Resolution Method for Your Project? ️ RICS APC Candidates! Negotiation, mediation, arbitration, adjudication... navigating dispute resolution options can be tricky. At APC Revision, we've got you covered. Our article gives a quick overview of the key differences between these methods: o Level of Formality: Negotiation is most informal, while adjudication is most formal (think court hearings). o Third-Party Role: Negotiation involves none, while arbitration has a party issuing a binding decision. o Control Over Outcome: Negotiation offers the most control, while arbitration gives the least. o Time & Cost: Negotiation can be quick and cheap, while arbitration is more expensive and time-consuming. o Confidentiality: Negotiation can be confidential, while adjudication decisions might be public. o Suitability: Negotiation suits minor disagreements, while adjudication is for construction disputes. o Choosing the right method is key! Our website (link in bio) has in-depth resources to help you navigate dispute resolution for your APC and future career. #RICSAPC #RICS #DisputeResolution #Construction #CharteredSurveyor #MRICS #Revision #Success

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐲𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞-𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭? (Delhi High Court)   MR GAJENDRA MISHRA Vs. POKHRAMA FOUNDATION & ANR. (10 Jan 2024)   👉The petitioner has filed the present application under section 11 of A&C Act seeking an appointment of #arbitrator to #adjudicate a #dispute pertaining to a #Construction contract executed in 2021.   👉The Respondent failed to make payments to the petitioner “Contractor” and subsequently #terminated the contract. Henceforth the Petitioner #invoked arbitration as per the Contract clause.   👉The Respondent alleged that the Dispute Resolution clause in the Contract stipulates the parties #pre-arbitral steps i.e Conciliation proceedings by the Project Manager before #invocation of arbitration, hence challenged the maintainability of section 11 application.   𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 ✍️ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 ℎ𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 r𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 🔗 Conciliation mechanism has therefore been given a go-by, by the Respondent itself.   🔗 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒.   📝 Henceforth, the objections raised by the Respondent regarding the #non-fulfilment of #pre-arbitral proceedings is not #maintainable under law.   Accordingly the court rejected the contentions of the Respondent and appointed an arbitration for fresh adjudication of dispute. Rama Subramanian B E LLB FCIArb Madhu mithra BBA., LLB ACIArb MANIKANDAN MURUGESAN. B.Tech.,MCIArb,MICCP,MQSi,MCIOB,MAIADR #Arbitration #Delhihighcourt #TerimantionofContract #Constructiondispute #Adroit #ADR

Updates #ADR Why it is important for Infrastructure companies to include a separate Arbitration Clause in their Government Contracts ? In the recent #arbitration case u/s 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act between Kalpataru Projects International Ltd. v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai:- The applicant contested that the Modified clause (96) in the General Conditions of Contract for Civil Works (GCC) invokes arbitration as there was failure in Pre-arbitral steps to settle payment dispute on addition work done by the company. The MCGM contended that clause 96 cannot be construed to be an arbitration clause.  The Bombay high court dismissed the application and held that :- 1. The clause clearly indicates that it is merely declaratory and clarificatory in nature, 2. The statement "for settlement of disputes" cannot be construed as an arbitration clause 3. Merely because a particular decision is made final and binding by that clause does not show that the parties intended to have their disputes resolved through Arbitration, the modified Clause 96 of the GCC does not constitute an Arbitration Agreement between the parties. GCC Clause (96):- If any dispute, difference or claim is raised by either party relating to any matter arising out of the contract, the aggrieved party within a period of 7 days to the concerned Addl. Municipal Commissioner who shall constitute a committee comprising of three officers i.e. concerned D.M.C. or Director (E.S. & P.) Chief Engineer other than the Engineer of the Contract and concerned Chief Accountant. The Committee shall give its decision in writing within 60 days. Appeal from the order of the Committee may be referred to Municipal Commissioner within seven days. Thereafter the Municipal Commissioner shall constitute the Committee comprising of 3 Addl. Municipal Commissioners in charge of Finance Department. The decision given by this Committee shall be final and binding upon the parties. #governmentcontracts #ADR #arbitrationlaw

Is Filing an Application Under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC Equivalent to Section 8 Compliance in Arbitration? In M/s Naolin Infrastructure Private Ltd. v. M/s Kalpana Industries [Judgment dated February 2, 2024, Arb. App. 162 of 2023], the Telangana High Court clarified this issue. The court emphasized that filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can satisfy the requirements of Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The application brought to the court's attention the existence of an arbitration agreement, which is the core requirement under Section 8. Citing Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Abdul Samad, the court highlighted that once an arbitration clause is flagged, the focus shifts from whether the court has jurisdiction to whether its jurisdiction is excluded under special statutory provisions. This ensures priority of special statutes over general law, avoiding delays and enhancing dispute resolution efficiency. In this case, the court held that the applicant had sufficiently complied with Section 8, making way for arbitration and underscoring the importance of recognizing arbitration agreements promptly. #Arbitration #CPC #Section8 #TelanganaHighCourt #ADR #LegalInsights #DisputeResolution

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐲𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞-𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭? (Delhi High Court) MR GAJENDRA MISHRA Vs. POKHRAMA FOUNDATION & ANR. (10 Jan 2024) The petitioner has filed the present application under section 11 of A&C Act seeking an appointment of #arbitrator to #adjudicate a #dispute pertaining to a #Construction contract executed in 2021. The Respondent failed to make payments to the petitioner “Contractor” and subsequently #terminated the contract. Henceforth the Petitioner #invoked arbitration as per the Contract clause. The Respondent alleged that the Dispute Resolution clause in the Contract stipulates the parties #pre-arbitral steps i.e Conciliation proceedings by the Project Manager before #invocation of arbitration, hence challenged the maintainability of section 11 application. The Court observed the following ✍️ 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡. 𝐼𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡 ℎ𝑦𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟, 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 🔗 Conciliation mechanism has therefore been given a go-by, by theRespondent itself. 🔗 𝐹𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑢𝑝𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑐𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑏𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒. 📝 Henceforth, the objections raised by the Respondent regarding the #non-fulfilment of #pre-arbitral proceedings is not #maintainable under law. Accordingly the court rejected the contentions of the Respondent and appointed an arbitration for fresh adjudication of dispute. #Arbitration #Delhihighcourt #TerimantionofContract #Constructiondispute ADROIT CLAIMS & ADR CONSULTANTS BEAM ADR

In the A v B [2020] EWHC 809 (TCC) case, the High Court tackled the issue of conflicts of interest for expert witnesses. The case involved a consultancy firm that was acting as an expert witness for one party in arbitration proceedings, while also being approached to act for another party in a separate but related arbitration. This situation created a conflict of interest, leading to an injunction request. The court ruled that the expert owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty to their original client. Even though expert witnesses have a duty to the court, they also have a responsibility to avoid any conflicts of interest with their clients. The ruling emphasised the importance of transparent conflict-checking processes, especially for multi-disciplinary firms. This case is a reminder that managing potential conflicts early on is critical, particularly for firms working across multiple jurisdictions. Ensuring that no overlap exists between roles is essential for maintaining integrity in arbitration and dispute resolution. #ConstructionManagement #ExpertWitness #DelayAnalysis #ProjectManagement #ContractManagement #FiduciaryDuty #ConflictOfInterest #Arbitration #ConstructionLaw #PlanetalLimited

What are the essential aspects to consider in the adjudication process? In construction adjudication, there are mandatory aspects to comply with. Here are 10 of them: 1️⃣ Crystallised dispute – Ensure there is a dispute. 2️⃣ Notice of adjudication – Gives jurisdiction. 3️⃣ Appoint an adjudicator within 7 days, who is in accord with the contract. 4️⃣ Payment for adjudicator fees – How much, when, plus joint several liability. 5️⃣ Party costs - Not recoverable. 6️⃣ The Referral Notice – Sets out the details and evidence. 7️⃣ The timetable – Fast 28-day determination of rights. 8️⃣ The Decision – Parties must comply. Enforceable in the high court (TCC). 9️⃣ Appeal – None. The matter can be taken to court or arbitration (if applicable). 🔟 Statutes and over 500 enforcement cases – The above must comply and be conducted in accordance with the law. There are many twists and turns. 📞 It's not recommended that adjudication be tackled without professional help. Call Arbicon on 01733 233737. #ConstructionUK #ConstructionLaw #ConstructionContract