Damages/Property survey
Language: English Series: Architects` Journal ; 189(18) 3 May 1989, 69-70(2)Publication details: 1989Subject(s): Summary: Discussion of E Turner and Sons Ltd v Mathind Ltd (1986) (Unreported). Written terms incorporated into an oral contract do not give that contract the status of a written contract; a sum is not a penalty just because it is greater than the actual loss suffered; there is no reason why a single liquidated damages clause in a contract should be the limit of all losses in respect of late completion of phased handovers and if parties to a contract intended phased handovers to be contractual, they generally would be so and would give rise to damages .| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS40734 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 25793-1001 |
Discussion of E Turner and Sons Ltd v Mathind Ltd (1986) (Unreported). Written terms incorporated into an oral contract do not give that contract the status of a written contract; a sum is not a penalty just because it is greater than the actual loss suffered; there is no reason why a single liquidated damages clause in a contract should be the limit of all losses in respect of late completion of phased handovers and if parties to a contract intended phased handovers to be contractual, they generally would be so and would give rise to damages .