Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Using Old Plans to Rebuild Storm Damage 2
- Thread starter Atomic25
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #3
MiketheEngineer
Structural
You may even be required to upgrade the electrical, plumbing or HVAC to meet current codes. Surprise - Surprise
Good Luck
Good Luck
msquared48
Structural
If it got hit by a Tornado with enough force to rip off the roof, I'd make sure the rest of the structure was not compromised, particularly the connections to the foundation.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
dicksewerrat
Civil/Environmental
-
1
- #7
the client does "own" those plans (unless your contract says otherwise) and they do not "expire" after a certain amount of time. He doesn't need to notify you or ask your permission to "use" them. When you contracted with the owner, your main deliverable is a set of plans that may be used for construction, now or in the future at the owners convenience. See attached ownership clause from a typical contract.
That being said, he must get the proper permits to do any construction or reconstruction. That means he must submit plans, sealed by an engineer that meet the requirements of the building department. Many building departments do not require upgrades to current code if you are only repairing damage. Some require it based on the cost of construction. Of course, that decision is made by the building department and might be on a case by case basis. If the plans examiner notices that the plans or your signature are dated 15 years ago, he may review those plans a little more closely and may require those revisions to comply with more stringent code.
Given that the client may want to make modifications to your plans, he can do that also, with or without your knowledge. But that would require the revised plans to be sealed again, either by you or by another engineer.
Your best bet to protect yourself is to include language in your contract or on the plans or both that releases you from liability if the client uses those plans in an inappropriate way. Such as changing them without involving an engineer or submitting them for permitting many years after they were prepared.
That being said, he must get the proper permits to do any construction or reconstruction. That means he must submit plans, sealed by an engineer that meet the requirements of the building department. Many building departments do not require upgrades to current code if you are only repairing damage. Some require it based on the cost of construction. Of course, that decision is made by the building department and might be on a case by case basis. If the plans examiner notices that the plans or your signature are dated 15 years ago, he may review those plans a little more closely and may require those revisions to comply with more stringent code.
Given that the client may want to make modifications to your plans, he can do that also, with or without your knowledge. But that would require the revised plans to be sealed again, either by you or by another engineer.
Your best bet to protect yourself is to include language in your contract or on the plans or both that releases you from liability if the client uses those plans in an inappropriate way. Such as changing them without involving an engineer or submitting them for permitting many years after they were prepared.
-
1
- #11
cvg,
That deliverable language you attached certainly is a good and proper contract for the deliverables (any two parties can agree on anythink like this).
However, under most state laws in the US, the deliverable is NOT the actual service provided for fee, but rather the plans are simply an instrument of service - a communication tool used by the consultant to communicate the design to the intersted parties.
What this all means is, the OWNER can certainly claim ownership of the plans/specs. But the consultant's design is and always will be a service that cannot be "owned" in the same sense as the plans.
So if the OWNER then takes those deliverables and uses them for another purpose, another project, etc. without the knowledge of the engineer, the risk of that use is all on the OWNER - and it is usually wise to state that concept of risk up front or at the very least after the plans go out.
Many firms use some sort of language on the plan sheets stating that - such and such design is intended for use on this project only and any subsequent use of the plans is at no risk to the consultant.
That deliverable language you attached certainly is a good and proper contract for the deliverables (any two parties can agree on anythink like this).
However, under most state laws in the US, the deliverable is NOT the actual service provided for fee, but rather the plans are simply an instrument of service - a communication tool used by the consultant to communicate the design to the intersted parties.
What this all means is, the OWNER can certainly claim ownership of the plans/specs. But the consultant's design is and always will be a service that cannot be "owned" in the same sense as the plans.
So if the OWNER then takes those deliverables and uses them for another purpose, another project, etc. without the knowledge of the engineer, the risk of that use is all on the OWNER - and it is usually wise to state that concept of risk up front or at the very least after the plans go out.
Many firms use some sort of language on the plan sheets stating that - such and such design is intended for use on this project only and any subsequent use of the plans is at no risk to the consultant.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question