You Can’t Claim an EOT That Doesn’t Exist.

This week, I helped a main contractor prepare a series of extension of time (EOT) claims. They had their story straight, weather disruptions, late instructions, design changes, and a well-documented chain of emails.

But as soon as I opened their contract, I stopped.

The EOT clause they thought they were relying on wasn’t there.

Someone, somewhere, had “tidied up” the standard form and quietly deleted the very provision that gave them the right to claim.

They had reason. They had evidence.

But no clause, so there's no claim.

Clauses Are Moving Targets

For years, many in our industry have treated EOTs as a given, an assumed safety net built into every contract. Under NZS 3910:2013, that was mostly true. The language was familiar, the process predictable, and both sides knew the rules of engagement.

But the landscape has changed.

With the release of NZS 3910:2023, we’re seeing two diverging trends:

More clarity and structure in the new standard form itself, better-defined notice periods, more collaborative intent; and

A surge in bespoke or heavily amended versions where key protections quietly disappear before the ink dries.

What’s meant to be a “standard” form is now often a patchwork: NZS 3910 on the cover, but with 20, 30, or even 40 pages of “others conditions” that hollow out the clauses contractors rely on.

And here’s the twist, those deletions often happen under the radar.

Few people actually read the changes word-for-word before signing, and by the time a dispute surfaces, it’s far too late to realise the clause you need… simply isn’t there.

Bespoke Is the New Standard

There was a time when bespoke contracts were reserved for large, complex projects.

Now, even small-scale builds are running on modified hybrids drafted by well-meaning consultants or cut-and-paste legal teams.

The problem isn’t creativity, it’s inconsistency.

Each tweak moves the goalposts. Some delete EOT rights entirely. Others tie them to impossible notice periods or vague “Principal satisfaction” tests.

And when time really does go sideways, weather, labour shortage, late design, the contractor opens the contract expecting a lifeline, and finds a blank page.

“But It’s 3910, Isn’t It?”

That’s what I hear most often.

“We’re under 3910, so the usual clauses apply.”

Except they don’t.

Once the others conditions say otherwise, 3910 will only exist in name.

It’s like buying a car because it says one brand on the badge, but under the hood, the engine’s been swapped out.

Read for What’s Missing

When reviewing a contract, don’t just skim for the familiar.

Ask yourself:

• Has the EOT clause been shortened, replaced, or deleted?

• Are notice periods reasonable and reciprocal?

• Does the contract still allow for EOTs due to late information, variations, or weather or only under “Principal’s discretion”?

• What happens if you miss a notice deadline?

These are not small details. They are the line between a justified delay and liquidated damages.

Before You Build, Check What’s Missing

Reading a contract is never easy, especially under time pressure, with dense legal language and endless cross-references. But what makes it truly challenging is learning to see what’s not there. The unspoken parts. The missing bits that should protect you but don’t.

It takes patience to slow down, to ask the hard questions, and to seek professional help when something doesn’t feel right. But that effort gives you something invaluable, clauses you can rely on, from the beginning to the end of the project.

When everyone’s eager to start, contracts are signed in a rush, and people trust that the “standard” terms will keep them safe.

Except now, standard doesn’t mean safe.

It often just means assumed.

So next time, before you build, check what’s missing.