Be reasonable
Series: Building ; 266(805) 12 October 2001, 51(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Examines the problems caused by conflicting interpretations of contract terminology. Emphasises that the phrase 'reasonable skill and care' has a well established legal interpretation, but other familiar contract terms such as 'best endeavours' or 'best efforts' can have different interpretations for consultants and clients as illustrated in the case "Sheffield District Railways v Great Central Railway" (1911) which found 'best endeavours' to mean ' leave no stone unturned'. Warns that clients should also be wary of imposing a 'strict liability', and emphasises that 'reasonable skill and care' is usually the required standard in most forms of contract and common law.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64620 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 115254-1001 |
Examines the problems caused by conflicting interpretations of contract terminology. Emphasises that the phrase 'reasonable skill and care' has a well established legal interpretation, but other familiar contract terms such as 'best endeavours' or 'best efforts' can have different interpretations for consultants and clients as illustrated in the case "Sheffield District Railways v Great Central Railway" (1911) which found 'best endeavours' to mean ' leave no stone unturned'. Warns that clients should also be wary of imposing a 'strict liability', and emphasises that 'reasonable skill and care' is usually the required standard in most forms of contract and common law.