The use of vague phrases such as " not used " in Particular Conditions to delete provisions of the General Conditions without replacement or explanation leads to ambiguity and unclear contractual obligations. Such drafting can cause confusion as it fails to clarify whether the deleted provisions are simply not applicable or replaced by other terms. This practice is discouraged because it creates legal uncertainty and possible disputes regarding the rights and responsibilities of the parties.
Option A exemplifies this problem, as it deletes General Conditions clauses without specifying alternatives or clarifications.
Option B is a good practice where deletions are replaced by well-defined clauses to maintain contract balance.
Option C describes a clear method of issuing clarifications, promoting transparency and traceability.
Option D is consistent with standard practice, where clarifications during tender are formalized by contract amendments.
[References:, , FIDIC Contract Manager Study Guide, Module on Contract Administration Procedures and Particular Conditions drafting, , FIDIC Red Book 2017 Guide notes on drafting Particular Conditions, ]
Submit