Can anyone offer some practical guidance on how the term “fault” is to be interpreted in Cl 80.1 of NEC4? The new “fault” term jars slightly when read against the older “loss or damage” tests of the other liabilities - i.e. the Client has to have suffered a “loss” as typically defined in law.
For example, what is the perceived difference between a “fault” in the design contained in the Scope provided by the Client vs an ambiguity or inconsistency dealt with under clause 17 or an illegal or impossible requirement in the Scope (also under clause 17)?
To deal with this problem, however it is termed, the Scope has to be changed by instruction from the PM. Fair enough, and that is a straightforward CE.
However, is there a double-dip here in the Contractor’s favour here? For example, the discovery of the fault is in itself is a CE (as a Client liability) and then the instruction to subsequently change the Scope to fix the fault another CE. So the Contractor gets paid twice for the error - which appears legitimate under Cl 60.1.