Some know, or think they know, about “float” in the common law, although it is really a creature of contract and not a question of principle, but what is the position elsewhere, notably in European civil law jurisdictions? The authors’ purpose was to examine the approach in the four Nordic countries to what are called “buffer days”. Interestingly, there is no uniform answer. First, the subject does not commonly arise for consideration or decision. There is an apparent dearth of guidance, although the Norwegian Supreme Court has held that a contractor has a right to complete early, and an authoritative professor has argued that, under the Swedish form AB 04, all float has to be used before there can be any extension of time. Secondly, the lack of guidance stems from contracts not requiring consideration of the allocation of float. The standard forms in the countries are discussed. Thirdly, the lack of definitive guidance or thinking leads the authors to see the issue as one of basic principle with a number of references to the concept of “loyalty” (evidently equivalent to “good faith”). Fourthly, this fascinating insight whets the appetite for a further examination of the subject in other civil law jurisdictions which we hope that we will be able to do in future issues.

The second study is “Design Liability: An EU Comparison” (at page 395) by one of our regular contributors, Professor Sarah Lupton. Her paper is part of her research into design liability in 13 jurisdictions. Five European countries are examined: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands. Professor Lupton presented the results of her own investigations to experts in each country and incorporated their comments in the paper. Apart from Germany, each has a statutory 10-year liability régime for structural defects although in France it extends to cover fitness for purpose, habitability or usability. There are variations as to the level of liability and the need to demonstrate causation, e.g., under the statutory regimes for defects, liability is strict, except in The Netherlands. Events outside the contractor or consultant’s control, including complying with clients’ requirements, might be a defence to a claim under a warranty but not perhaps in Germany. Such examples show that contractors and professionals need to take care if their contracts are governed by the law of another