Comparison of time adjustment clauses between DZ3910, AS4000 and STCC

David Finnie


This article examines time adjustment clauses, as they relate to time adjustment between standard terms of construction contracts. DZ3910, AS4000 and STCC were compared on the basis of how risks are allocated, how this may impact on the contractor’s pricing, and ease of understanding for each clause. ASTCC was found to be the most easily interpreted contract, followed by AS4000 and then NZS3910. These assessments were based on the following: a) whether each contract contains words with multiple meanings, b) the number of words used per sentence, c) the amount of internal cross-referencing, and d) the clarity of the contract structure. The allowable pre-conditions for the contractor to claim a time adjustment are similar for all three contracts, and none of them expressly state which party is to bare the risk of buildability, or address the risk of a designer’s disclaimer clause. All of the contracts adopt the principle of contra preferentum which means that the employer bares the risk of variance if there are any ambiguities in the design documentation. Due to their similarities of risk allocation, all of the contracts provide the employer with a similar amount of price surety. AS4000 is the only contract to contain a stringent time-bar clause, limiting a contractor’s time adjustment claim. ASTCC requires the contractor to apply ‘immediately’ and DZ3910 provides a time-bar of 20 working days or as soon as practicable. None of the contracts clarify whether their timing requirements take precedence over the prevention principle, or over any other ground for claiming a time adjustment. The effect of DZ3910’s pre-notification clause 5.19.3 is discussed, and an alternative contents structure is recommended for DZ3910, using a project management method.



Contract law, Terms of contract, Time

Full Text:



Ameer Ali, N. (2008) 'Modern plain English drafting and construction: the Malaysian subcontract model terms'. Society of Construction Law UK. D90. October 2012

Bailey, E. (2009) A doctrine of good faith in New Zealand contractual relationships. Master's thesis, University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand. October 2012.

Bailey, J. (2007) 'What lies beneath: site conditions and contract risk', Society of Construction Law UK. 137. October 2012

Black, M. (2005) 'Design risk in FIDIC contracts', Society of Construction Law UK. October 2012

Finnie, D. (2012) 'Contract Delay what is it and how are we Performing?', Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 12 (1)

Heaphy, I. (2011) 'Do target cost contracts deliver value for money?' Society of Construction Law UK. D126. October 2012

Heintzman, Thomas G. (2013) 'Andrews v ANZ: what are the consequences for building contracts?' Association of Corporate Council. October 2012

Hibberd, P. (2005) 'Is single-point design responsibility under JCT 05 illusory?' Society of Construction Law UK. D73. October 2012

Kennedy-Grant, T. (2008) 'Cross fertilisation â New Zealand developments in construction law and adjudication'. Society of Construction Law Singapore. October 2012

Kirkham, R. (2009) Ferry and brandon's cost planning of buildings, 8th ed, Blackwell

Lim, T. (2009) 'Essence of Time in Construction Contracts', The Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 9 (2)

Murdoch, J. and Hughes, W. (2008) Construction contracts law and management, 4th ed, Taylor & Francis

Nissen, A. (2008) 'The designer's duty â time for review'. Society of Construction Law UK. 151. October 2012

Rosenberg, K. (2012) 'Design risk allocation under a traditional build contract'. Society of Construction Law UK. D140. October 2012

Standards Australia (1997) AS4000 â 1997 General conditions of contract. Standards Australia

Standards New Zealand (2012) Release of draft standard for public comment - DZ3910 conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction. October 2012