Arguments about fitness for purpose arise all the time in construction contract negotiations. A requirement of fitness for purpose is often found in employers&amp;’ standard main contract or package contract conditions - and they are often resisted by contractors but the parties may each have a different understanding of the term.<p></p><p>The basic obligations of a contractor would usually be to apply the skill and care to be expected of a reasonably competent contractor. On the other hand, fitness for purpose is determined by reference to the suitability or usefulness of the finished product rather than by the effort or level of expertise which went into producing it. If a building has to be fit for a purpose and is not, it is no defence for the contractor to show that he is competent and applied reasonable skill and care. </p><p>Employers often throw in fitness for purpose as the three magic words which will cover all potential problems - but this will not be the case if, for instance, the employer has also put together a highly prescriptive technical brief which takes important decisions away from the contractor. In this situation, a contractor may have a good argument that he was …