WHAT IS MEANT BY “TIME AT LARGE”?
Time at large is when a contract is entered into with no period of time fixed for completion. Where this occurs the Contractor's obligation is to complete work within a reasonable time.
Where a contract contains a requirement for completion by a definite date, circumstances can arise which render the time for completion no longer operable, again rendering time at large. An example is where a delay is caused by the Employer and the terms of the contract make no provisions for extending the completion date due to delays by the Employer.
The Contractor successfully used this argument in the case of Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd -v- McKinney Foundations Ltd heard before the Court of Appeal in 1970. It was held that as delays on the part of the City Council in approving remedial works to the piling were not catered for in the extension of time provisions, the right to penalties for delay was lost, leaving the Corporation with an entitlement to claim such common law damages as it was able to prove.
The more recent case of Rapid Building Group -v- Ealing Family Housing was heard before the Court of Appeal in 1984. Due to the presence of squatters the housing association was unable to give possession of the site to the Contractor on the due date. There was no provision in the contract for extensions of time for late possession. The Contractor was therefore able to successfully argue that time became at large. His obligation was altered to completing within a reasonable time and the Employer lost his rights to levy penalties.
If time does become ‘at large', the Contractor's obligation is to complete within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time is a question of fact: Fisher -v- Ford (1840). Calculating a reasonable time is not an easy matter and, as Emden's Building Contracts', 8th Edition, vol.1,p.177, puts it:
"Where a reasonable time for completion becomes substituted for a time specified in the contract ... then in order to ascertain what is a reasonable time, the whole circumstances must be taken into consideration and not merely those existing at the time of the making of the contract."
In Charles Rickards Ltd -v- Oppenheim (1950), Rickards agreed to supply a Rolls Royce motor car chassis and to build a body on it within seven months. They failed to complete the work by the agreed delivery date, but Oppenheim waived the original delivery date and new dates were promised and accepted by him. Eventually, Oppenheim gave written notice to Rickards stating that unless he received the car by a firm date, four weeks away, he would not accept it. The car was not delivered within the time specified and was not completed until some months later when Oppenheim refused to accept it.
The Court of Appeal held that he was justified in doing so. After waiving the initial stipulation as to time, Oppenheim was entitled to give reasonable notice making time of the essence again, and on the facts the notice was reasonable.
Vincent Powell Smith in his book ‘Problems in Construction Claims' has this to say concerning ‘time at large'.
"In building context it is clear that the same principles apply. If for some reason time under a building contract becomes ‘at large', the employer can give the Contractor reasonable notice to complete within a fixed reasonable time, thus making time of the essence again: Taylor -v- Brown (1839). However, if the Contractor does not complete by the new date, the employer's right to penalties does not revive, and he would left to pursue his remedy of general damages at common law.
BACK TO LEGAL & CONTRACTUAL FAQS
