Main Issue. As explained above, the novation agreement is not drafted under any condition and/or requirement or under any control by any professional bodies. It is infact is drafted under the requirement by the employer itself being the paymaster of the project. Various employers would generate various versions of novation agreement to their own interest. The above event has formed the inconsistencies of terms and conditions imposed toward the novated parties especially the consultant and the contractor. Being the paymaster of the project, the employer will always have the best of everything. However, it raises an issue of impartiality and unilateral relation between the contracted parties. If this is the case, will the contractor be covered if in the event there is a negligence by the consultant during the pre novation period that affects the tender exercise without the knowledge of the contractor and will the contractor be entitled for variation works with respect to the insufficient information provided during the tender as a results by the consultant’s slackness. Accordingly, there have been suggestions as to many contractual solutions to this issue. Research will be conducted through interviews with the relevant parties to this industry as to the probable or the most appropriate solution or remedy to the current dilemma of novation agreement in design and build. A peep as to how this scenario is dealt with and exercised in other country will also be incorporated in this report.
Main Issue. 3. The effects of the proposal on the provision of healthcare. Reasons
Main Issue. Nature of the Subject Machinery Petitioners contend that the subject machines used in their factory were not proper subjects of the Writ issued by the RTC, because they were in fact real property. Serious policy considerations, they argue, militate against a contrary characterization. Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides that writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property only.[15] Section 3 thereof reads:
