Does anyone have any suggestions or a list of what could/should be removed or...

Hi Rachel, Tried to reply to you earlier, but for some reason I couldn’t get on to this blog recently. A bit lengthy to try to go through every clause in the MB RBC, but if it’s still the form I looked at a few years ago it’s certainly true that it has some defects from an Owners point of view. Just as one example I seem to recall it had a clause about time extensions, which is fair enough. But that was made rather pointless, because it had no provision for putting in a completion date/period, and no provision for what is called Liquidated Damages (ie Delay Damages) which the builder should pay the Owner for each day he fails to complete on time. So they presumably drafted a fair contract, then deleted the clauses the builders don’t like! I suggest you compare the MB form with the NZ Standards Residential Building Contract NZS3902:2004, to see what a reasonable contract should contain. Apparently some lawyers have also made some modifications to this standard, but I’m trying to find out what those are.

Ad a sunset clause it (I.e if the builder doesn’tbuild the house within 8 months from the day the title is issued or the day you sign the agreement,then you can walk away from it by terminating the agreement). Ensure any additional payments (due to upgrades) are paid at the time of completion or you can pay as you build if you prefer. Any foundation earth works costs are defined (I.e; if the builder needs to dig deeper to build the foundation then who’s paying for that, you or him?) If it’s you, what the limite?

Hi Ali, Please see my previous reply to Rachel on her previous question about the MB contract. My suggestion was that she compare the MB form with the NZ Standards Residential Building Contract NZS3902:2004, to see what a reasonable contract should contain. Or of course actually use the NZS contract if the builder will agree. But many may not, precisely because it contains clauses such as the one you call a ‘sunset clause’ (ie a specified contract period or completion date). In connection with that you should note that such a clause, without another clause specifying reasons for time extensions for delays outside the builder’s control, would be unusual and quite unfair on the builder. Also, you must consider what action you would take if the builder still fails to complete on time. Normally there would be another clause specifying an amount of Liquidated Damages (I think NZS calls it Delay Expenses) the builder must pay you for each day he fails to complete. Naturally most builders don’t like that. I guess you could put in something about when the cost of Variations (what you call upgrades, but could be any kind of change) is paid. But in my view a little unfair not to pay for them at the time they are completed. I agree with you that how extra earth works, if required, will be paid for should be defined (they are usually a kind of Variation, if not shown on the original drawings). But I’m not sure why you think the builder should carry that risk (ie pay for them), unless they were caused by some kind of negligence on his part (eg leaving excavations open to flood during heavy rain, without taking reasonable action to prevent it).