Better safe than sorry

摘要

The penultimate paragraph of Stuart Pemble's article "Have I really been negligent?" (8 October, page 73) leads me to the view that he is wrong and Rudi Klein is, as usual, right. He comforts us that "the client's collateral warranties will ensure recourse against the architect and engineer for any defects and inadequacies in their design". "Ensure recourse" seems to imply that the client is on to a sure winner when something goes wrong. Unfortunately, the onus has always been on the client to prove negligence and ... oh, has anyone ever offered an article on the history of collateral warranties in the English courts?