Damages clause altered
Language: English Series: Building Design ; (857) 16 October 1987, 15(1)Publication details: 1987Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the decision in Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd , CA 29 July 1987, see WB2334-10, and the interpretation of JCT 1980 clause 24 governing damages for non-completion of the contract. At issue was the effect on the liquidated damages clause caused by the employer`s insertion of "nil" against the item for liquidated damages in the appendix. Also reviews the decision in Cochrane and Another v Graham and Sibbald , Second Division 25 February 1987, see Abstract , in which the plaintiff house purchasers sued the defendant chartered surveyors for negligence . The surveyors carried out a survey report on a house purchased by the plaintiffs, the report contained no mention of the dry rot later discovered.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS38240 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 9450-1001 |
Discusses the decision in Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd , CA 29 July 1987, see WB2334-10, and the interpretation of JCT 1980 clause 24 governing damages for non-completion of the contract. At issue was the effect on the liquidated damages clause caused by the employer`s insertion of "nil" against the item for liquidated damages in the appendix. Also reviews the decision in Cochrane and Another v Graham and Sibbald , Second Division 25 February 1987, see Abstract , in which the plaintiff house purchasers sued the defendant chartered surveyors for negligence . The surveyors carried out a survey report on a house purchased by the plaintiffs, the report contained no mention of the dry rot later discovered.