Skip to main content
Log inGet started

Agreeing the job · Scenario · Both sides

The customer chose the doors, but nobody checked the lead time

The accepted project

Nadia and Tom appoint Oakfield Build for a two-storey extension.

The quotation includes:

Rear aluminium sliding doors, supply allowance £8,500 excluding installation. Final system and finish by customer selection.

The programme shows the building becoming weather-tight on 30 June.

The showroom message

On 22 April, Nadia visits a showroom and sends the contractor a photograph:

These are perfect. Black, three panels. Let's go with these.

The site manager replies:

Nice choice.

Nadia believes the doors are now ordered.

The site manager believes the estimator will obtain a quotation. The estimator does not see the message. Tom has not accepted any price increase. The architect has not checked the threshold detail.

Six weeks later

The contractor asks whether the doors have been confirmed. Nadia is surprised.

The supplier identifies the product from the photograph and quotes:

  • £9,740 supply;
  • £280 specialist lifting equipment;
  • ten-week manufacture after survey and drawing approval;
  • no cancellation after manufacturing sign-off.

The earliest likely delivery is now late August.

How each side sees it

The customer

The customer's position

Nadia says:

  • the selection was sent in April;
  • the contractor acknowledged it;
  • she was never told that another approval was needed;
  • she assumed the allowance covered the doors;
  • she did not know the weather-tight date depended on the order.

Those concerns are reasonable.

The builder

The contractor's position

Oakfield Build says:

  • a photograph was not a complete product specification;
  • no survey had occurred;
  • the supplier and model were not named;
  • the price was above the allowance;
  • only the two contracting customers can accept the increase;
  • the words “nice choice” did not authorise an order.

Those concerns are also reasonable.

What should have happened

The project should have created a defined decision:

| Decision element | Required record | | --- | --- | | Subject | Rear sliding-door system, configuration and finish | | Basis | Drawing A-204 Rev C and £8,500 supply allowance | | Options | Compliant systems with full project price and lead time | | Technical review | Opening, threshold, structure, thermal performance and planning appearance | | Decision authority | Nadia and Tom jointly for any price increase | | Due date | 7 April, explained by survey, review and manufacture | | Selection | Manufacturer, model, size, configuration, finish and product code | | Commercial effect | Allowance difference and related lifting cost | | Procurement state | Not ordered until accepted and manufacturing drawing signed | | Reversibility | Non-cancellable after manufacturing sign-off |

A fair recovery

The parties do not begin by declaring who caused the whole delay.

They first establish:

  • when sufficient options and lead-time information were provided;
  • what the accepted programme assumed;
  • what the April exchange reasonably communicated;
  • alternative products and delivery dates;
  • temporary weathering options;
  • work that can be resequenced;
  • actual price and programme consequences.

Oakfield Build issues the identified option and two alternatives. Nadia and Tom accept one alternative within the allowance with a five-week lead time. The architect confirms a revised threshold detail. The parties record a three-week programme adjustment after mitigation, not the supplier's entire ten-week period.

The lesson

The problem was not indecision. Nadia made a choice. The problem was that the project never converted it into a complete, authorised and relied-upon decision.

Assurr preserves that conversion. It does not suggest that a photograph, acknowledgement or selection alone proves technical approval, price acceptance or an order.

General guidance, not legal advice
Was this useful?

In the same moment

Related terms