Reddy Kancharla believes that defects are a significant source of disagreements on building projects. Often, the first reaction is to assign blame and seek swift reparation. However, it is prudent to take the time to correctly identify the origin of the fault and determine corrective activities. Reddy says to weigh the consequences of the delay and expense of remediation against the impact of the defect.
Reddy Kancharla believes experts must investigate
the fault and appropriate corrective steps. The client may prefer to seek an
alternative, negotiated solution rather than seek restitution.
The client may wish to recover the total cost
of work needed due to the defaulting party (e.g., breach of contract or
carelessness), thus raising questions of what is recoverable.
You might think that this would be a simple
matter. But, Reddy Kancharla believes the situation is a little more
complicated, as it always is in law.
Experience taught Reddy Kancharla that there
is no sure-fire way to recoup all of the costs of remedial work. However,
adopting modest actions should help with a successful recovery. So, when
deciding what remedial work to perform, you should consider the following:
- Obtain
advice from an impartial expert on the sources of the faults and the best repair
remedy.
- If the
proposed corrective works are incredibly costly or significant, you may seek
a second expert opinion on which works to carry out. If both experts'
judgments agree, the defaulting party will find it difficult to oppose
your conclusion.
- Consider the
experts' advice from a practical and commercial standpoint.
- Inform the
defaulting party promptly about the remedial actions you intend to take
and the reasons for them.
- Allow the
defaulting party and its experts to investigate the faults before the
corrective activities begin. Otherwise, you are removing the evidence of
defects before the defaulting party has a chance to inspect them.