Slater V CA Duquemin Limited
Slater V CA Duquemin Limited
- 1992
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1992 CILL 761-762(2) .
ORC 16 April 1992. In September 1986 S, the employer, entered into a Standard JCT Contract with Quantities (July 1977 revision) with C, the contractors, for the refurbishment and extension of a country house. The works overran the completition date. An emergency generator required by the contract was delivered in a damaged condition and had to be returned to the manufacturers. In January 1988 S barred C`s employees from site preventing them from doing any more work. S then employed further contractors at their own expense to complete the works. The generator was repaired but was rejected by L on the grounds that once damaged it might still be defective. The parties agreed that C were entitled to damages for disruption but other disputes were refered to arbitration. The arbitrator decided that S had repudiated the contract and that C were therefore entitled to an uncertificiated payment on the final account for the work which they carried out to the date of repudiation. He also held t
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
DELAYS
ORC 16 April 1992. In September 1986 S, the employer, entered into a Standard JCT Contract with Quantities (July 1977 revision) with C, the contractors, for the refurbishment and extension of a country house. The works overran the completition date. An emergency generator required by the contract was delivered in a damaged condition and had to be returned to the manufacturers. In January 1988 S barred C`s employees from site preventing them from doing any more work. S then employed further contractors at their own expense to complete the works. The generator was repaired but was rejected by L on the grounds that once damaged it might still be defective. The parties agreed that C were entitled to damages for disruption but other disputes were refered to arbitration. The arbitrator decided that S had repudiated the contract and that C were therefore entitled to an uncertificiated payment on the final account for the work which they carried out to the date of repudiation. He also held t
MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
DELAYS