Review liability caps and risk wording in your design contracts

For architecture and engineering businesses, a liability clause can affect far more than one isolated dispute point. It can shape exposure for design errors, delays, reliance on third-party information, consultant involvement, and claims that arise long after work is delivered. If the clause is too broad, too narrow or inconsistent with the rest of the contract, it may not support the commercial position you thought you had. The practical working model can be just as important as the contract wording, which is why a review should look at the clause in context.

We usually look at whether the liability cap is clear, whether exclusions and carve-outs are drafted consistently, and whether related clauses such as indemnities, warranties, fitness-for-purpose wording or consultant responsibility undermine the intended limit. In design contracts, we also consider practical project risks such as staged deliverables, reliance on surveys or client instructions, and whether multiple parties contribute to the final outcome. A clause that looks acceptable in isolation can still create problems if the surrounding terms pull risk back onto your firm in another way.

Sometimes a standard starting point is workable, but design projects often vary too much for one clause to fit every engagement well. The right approach depends on the services being provided, the project size, whether specialist consultants are involved, what assumptions your work relies on, and how responsibility is split across the project team. A clause that suits a low-risk advisory engagement may be a poor fit for a multi-stage design project with external dependencies. We review whether your wording matches the commercial reality of the work you are taking on.

We look beyond the cap figure itself. A liability limit can be weakened or reshaped by other parts of the contract, including indemnities, exclusions, standard of care wording, insurance references, reliance clauses, and obligations that continue after completion. For design firms, those surrounding provisions often matter just as much as the headline cap. The review is intended to show how the clause operates as part of the whole contract, not just whether one number appears commercially acceptable on its face.

The fixed-fee covers a legal review of the limitation of liability wording and related contract context you provide, together with practical recommendations on issues we identify. Depending on the matter, that may include suggested drafting changes or comments on how the clause interacts with indemnities, service scope or consultant arrangements. It does not include tax advice, ongoing representation, dispute management, or full contract negotiations with the other side. If you need broader drafting or negotiation support after the review, that can be scoped separately.

Just submit an enquiry via this page or click the 'get started' button on our website to submit an enquiry. After you've submitted an enquiry, one of our legal consultants will review your enquiry within 1 business day and get in touch to get a better idea of exactly what you are looking for.

Then your legal consultant will send through an email with a bit more information about the services you need, along with a fixed fee quote setting out costs, scope of the service and timing. Have a read through it, and if you're happy with the scope, you can accept and sign our engagement letter online - easy!

Once you've formally accepted, we'll connect you with a specialist lawyer and they will work with you to complete your project. They will contact you by email or phone if they need to get in touch.

Sprintlaw works on fixed-fee pricing wherever possible, so you can review the scope and cost before you decide whether to proceed. For the Limitation Of Liability Review For Design Firms service, pricing starts from $900.00.

After you enquire, a legal consultant will confirm what is included, the expected timing and whether any extra work is needed before you engage us.

We operate completely online, which means we can help you wherever you are in New Zealand. We have office spaces in Sydney, and in Melbourne, but our use of technology allows our team members to work remotely from around the world. Our legal team are mostly based in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. We also have a London office for Sprintlaw UK.

Our legal team is made up of experienced lawyers, who are specialists in various areas of law and hold an Australian legal practising certificate. None of our Sprintlaw lawyers are New Zealand qualified lawyers and they do not currently hold a New Zealand practising certificate.

They provide legal services working remotely from Australia via our 'legal consultancy' model, through which (under section 6 and section 35 of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006) our Australian legal team are permitted to provide legal services to New Zealand businesses provided they do not provide services in certain 'reserved' areas of law. You can read our FAQ page to learn a bit more about our 'legal consultancy' model.

Given the strong similarities between Australian and New Zealand law, and the areas of law in which we practice (being small business and startup law), we do not view the fact that our lawyers have not qualified in New Zealand as having any substantive impact on the quality of our service. We are committed to ensuring that we provide high quality, affordable legal services to all our New Zealand clients.

Our legal team have all trained at leading firms, but have left the traditional corporate law world to join us on our mission to create a new and better way of delivering legal services. They have specialist expertise in technology law, intellectual property law, contract drafting and review, corporate law and commercial law.