Common use of SKILL AND CARE Clause in Contracts

SKILL AND CARE. 2.1 The Consultant undertakes with and warrants to the Beneficiary that:- 2.1.1 in carrying out and performing the services under or in connection with the Appointment, the Consultant has exercised and will continue to exercise all the reasonable skill, care and diligence to be expected of a competent and appropriately qualified member of the Consultant’s profession who is experienced of and who holds himself out as being experienced in carrying out services equivalent to those undertaken by the Consultant under the Appointment in connection with developments of the same type, complexity, value and timescale to the Development; 2.1.2 the Consultant has exercised and will continue to exercise the standard of skill, care and attention referred to in Clause 2.1.1 not to specify any products or materials for use in the Project which at the time of use:- (a) do not conform with British and European Standards or Codes of Practice; or (b) are generally known within the Consultant's profession to be deleterious, in the particular circumstances in which they are specified for use, to health and safety and/or the durability of the building or structure or structure in which they are used; 2.1.3 it has carried out and will continue to carry out the duties and obligations on its part to be performed under the Appointment. 2.2 The Consultant shall have no greater liability to the Beneficiary, and shall owe to the Beneficiary no greater a standard of duty under this Agreement than would have been owed if the Beneficiary had been named as the Employer under the Appointment. If a claim is brought against the Consultant by the Beneficiary the Consultant may rely on any defence or limitation available to it under the terms of the Appointment save that the Consultant may not raise by way of defence or set off or abatement or to bring any counterclaim in respect of any monies due to it under or in connection with the Appointment. The Consultant may not plead a ‘no-loss’ defence, including one based on an argument that since the Employer under the Appointment has not suffered a loss then the Beneficiary is not entitled to recover a loss it has suffered or that the Beneficiary’s loss is irrecoverable because it would not be foreseeable that the Employer under the Appointment would suffer such a loss.