Considering prescription
Brewer, G.
Considering prescription - 2004 - Contract Journal 422(6467) 17 March 2004, 26(1) .
Looks at "Musselburgh and Fisherrow Co-operative Society v Mowlem Scotland Ltd" (CA30/02, unreported), which examined where defects first come to light after completion. In "Musselburgh" it was discovered a swimming pool leaked after completion in 1992, due to three reasons. CS found that Musselburgh (M) had discovered first two leaks soon after completion, but had not tried to recover damages within five years of that date. The third defect was not discovered until 2002 and could not have been discovered until then. CS did not accept Mowlem's (MO) assertion that discovery of the first two leaks should have led to discovery of a third and that this was the date for the claim of all three leaks. Each should be treated as distinct separate defects. Found that M was entitled to press its claim against MO for third defect as prescription period for that claim had not expired. Note that in Scotland limitation is called prescription. View judgment at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/.
MUSSELBURGH AND FISHERROW CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY V MOWLEM SCOTLAND LTD
COMPLETION
STATUTORY LIMITATION PERIOD
PRESCRIPTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
SCOTLAND
LIMITATION ACT 1980
SCOTTISH EQUITABLE V MILLER CONSTRUCTION
LIMITATION
Considering prescription - 2004 - Contract Journal 422(6467) 17 March 2004, 26(1) .
Looks at "Musselburgh and Fisherrow Co-operative Society v Mowlem Scotland Ltd" (CA30/02, unreported), which examined where defects first come to light after completion. In "Musselburgh" it was discovered a swimming pool leaked after completion in 1992, due to three reasons. CS found that Musselburgh (M) had discovered first two leaks soon after completion, but had not tried to recover damages within five years of that date. The third defect was not discovered until 2002 and could not have been discovered until then. CS did not accept Mowlem's (MO) assertion that discovery of the first two leaks should have led to discovery of a third and that this was the date for the claim of all three leaks. Each should be treated as distinct separate defects. Found that M was entitled to press its claim against MO for third defect as prescription period for that claim had not expired. Note that in Scotland limitation is called prescription. View judgment at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/.
MUSSELBURGH AND FISHERROW CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY V MOWLEM SCOTLAND LTD
COMPLETION
STATUTORY LIMITATION PERIOD
PRESCRIPTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
SCOTLAND
LIMITATION ACT 1980
SCOTTISH EQUITABLE V MILLER CONSTRUCTION
LIMITATION