Casson v Ostley P J Ltd
Series: Construction Law Journal ; [2002] 18 Const LJ 145-152(8) | Building Law Reports ; [2003] 3 BLR 147-153(7)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: CA 29 June 2001. The appellant (C) employed the respondent (O) to carry out works to its farm. The contract was in the form of O's standard terms and conditions. During the course of the renovation works a fire broke out. The judge at first instance had to decide whether O was liable for the fire damage, given the assumed fact that the fire was caused by its negligence. It was held that the contract exempted O from liability for fire caused by its own negligence. C appealed. "Held" that insurance provisions in a contract are not there mainly for defining the obligations of one party to another.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS65580 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 118516-1001 |
CA 29 June 2001. The appellant (C) employed the respondent (O) to carry out works to its farm. The contract was in the form of O's standard terms and conditions. During the course of the renovation works a fire broke out. The judge at first instance had to decide whether O was liable for the fire damage, given the assumed fact that the fire was caused by its negligence. It was held that the contract exempted O from liability for fire caused by its own negligence. C appealed. "Held" that insurance provisions in a contract are not there mainly for defining the obligations of one party to another.