Jarvis Brent Ltd v Rowlinson Construction Ltd
Jarvis Brent Ltd v Rowlinson Construction Ltd
- 1990
- Construction Industry Law Letter (1990) CILL 620-622(3) .
ORC 13 December 1990 The contractor Jarvis Brent (JB) entered into a written agreement in JCT 1980 form with Rowlinson (R) to erect buildings in London. The completion date set by the contract and an extended date set by the architect passed without the works being completed. R sent JB a copy of a letter written to it by the quantity surveyor showing liquidated damages to date and the reduced amount of the interim certificate then due. This process was not repeated in relation to future interim certificates . Cheques were merely sent for lesser amounts than those certified. JB argued that on true construction of Clause 24.1 a written requirement was a condition precedent to recovery by R of liquidated damages and that neither the sending of the qs`s letter to JB nor the transmission of cheques in reduced amount constituted requirements in writing. R contended that JB was estopped from relying on this argument on the grounds that JB did not complain that the deductions were in breach
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CASE LAW
CLAIMS
DEDUCTION
ORC 13 December 1990 The contractor Jarvis Brent (JB) entered into a written agreement in JCT 1980 form with Rowlinson (R) to erect buildings in London. The completion date set by the contract and an extended date set by the architect passed without the works being completed. R sent JB a copy of a letter written to it by the quantity surveyor showing liquidated damages to date and the reduced amount of the interim certificate then due. This process was not repeated in relation to future interim certificates . Cheques were merely sent for lesser amounts than those certified. JB argued that on true construction of Clause 24.1 a written requirement was a condition precedent to recovery by R of liquidated damages and that neither the sending of the qs`s letter to JB nor the transmission of cheques in reduced amount constituted requirements in writing. R contended that JB was estopped from relying on this argument on the grounds that JB did not complain that the deductions were in breach
BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
CASE LAW
CLAIMS
DEDUCTION