100 One possible approach is that AS2545 1993 on the true construction of its terms, had this effect. The validity of such an approach was strongly resisted by the appellant. If that was in truth the basis for the Master's reasoning, in my respectful view there are difficulties in the way of its acceptance. If AS2545 1993 is considered alone, as a complete document, given that the term Main Contractor's Representative is expressly and exhaustively defined in cl 2, I am not persuaded that as a matter of construction of the document itself, the view taken by the Master can be sustained. Indeed, when considered as a complete document and in isolation, the preferable view would appear to be that its operation depended critically upon the appointment of an MCR who, despite the word "representative", has functions under the conditions which are to be performed with a measure of independence from the main contractor so that fairness is done both to the subcontractor and the main contractor. The functions of the MCR appear to be intended, on the true construction of AS2545 1993 as a complete document in isolation, to be essential to many critical stages of the performance of the works. I am unable to see in the language of AS2545 1993, when read in isolation as a complete document, adequate scope for a construction which would allow references to the MCR to be references to the main contractor. No discernible object of cl 42.1, or of the document as a whole, would appear to support such a construction. None of the decisions which have sought to construe AS2545 1993, or substantially similar forms of conditions of contract, provide support for such a construction: see, for example, Blue Chip Pty Ltd v Concrete Constructions Group Pty Ltd (1996) 13 BCL 31 (Queensland Court of Appeal), Algons Engineering Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd (1997) 14 BCL 215 (NSW Supreme Court, Rolfe J).