The rules define a client as a person for whom the construction work is performed. For a client who does not work in the construction industry or who does not have the expertise and experience to complete a construction project, meeting these obligations may be impractical. Moreover, it is apparent from the wording of the rules that those obligations cannot be `delegated` to a `principal contractor` or to a appointed `contractor`. Sub-regulations 5 (6) and (7) of the regulations provide for the written designation of a competent person acting as an agent on behalf of the client. However, clients would be advised to consider whether a written date and the terms of an underlying mandate agreement are sufficient to protect themselves from possible liability that may result from an infringement within the meaning of OHASSA. In cases where the client may not have the necessary expertise and experience for a construction project, such an agreement would be indispensable to protect the client`s interests. Failure to enter into a contract with an agent within the meaning of Article 37(2) of OHASA may lead to potential liability. Ensuring a clear and clear agreement in place in this regard provides a higher level of security and a means for the parties to settle their relationship for the duration of the construction project. . . .