Image from Google Jackets

Lamacrest (Contracts) Ltd v J I Case Europe Ltd

Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; 1992 CILL 790-791(2)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 September 1991. The defendants (C) owned a factory and appointed the claimants (L) to carry out refurbishment work to the floor. C sued L for breach of an implied warranty of fitness and also argued that L was in breach of a subsequent agreement in failing to complete the work as agreed and in failing to effect the repairs. L denied the existence of any warranty. In addition L denied that they were in breach of the subsequent agreement, as C had repudiated the agreement by refusing to make any further payments until the agreed work had been completed. L applied for leave to appeal on two questions of fact. The court decided that L did not need leave to appeal. It was "held" that leave to appeal is limited to the question or questions of fact for which leave has been given. Accordingly, it was necessary to obtain leave.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47591 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 62575-1001

CA 19 September 1991. The defendants (C) owned a factory and appointed the claimants (L) to carry out refurbishment work to the floor. C sued L for breach of an implied warranty of fitness and also argued that L was in breach of a subsequent agreement in failing to complete the work as agreed and in failing to effect the repairs. L denied the existence of any warranty. In addition L denied that they were in breach of the subsequent agreement, as C had repudiated the agreement by refusing to make any further payments until the agreed work had been completed. L applied for leave to appeal on two questions of fact. The court decided that L did not need leave to appeal. It was "held" that leave to appeal is limited to the question or questions of fact for which leave has been given. Accordingly, it was necessary to obtain leave.