Coltman Precast Concrete Limited v W & J Simons (Contractors) Limited
Coltman Precast Concrete Limited v W & J Simons (Contractors) Limited
- 1993
- Construction Industry Law Letter 1993 CILL 814-816(3) .
QBD 18 January 1993. S were main contractors for a new stand at a cricket club. The contract was JCT Private Without Quantities Standard Form, 1980 edition. C were nominated subcontractors to supply and fix re-cast concrete decking units. The intention was to complete the appropriate forms of nominated subcontract agreements but, as often happens, C did not return the subcontract duly signed. S waived the stipulation stating that `this order will only become valid after we have received a signed copy of the subcontract` and relations were taken to be governed by standard forms. A sub-subcontractor, W, was engaged by C to carry out mastic jointing of the precast concrete units. This gave rise to allegations of defective work and a letter from S to C demanded £22,000 and threatened to initiate arbitration proceedings if the demand was not met. C issued a writ against S demanding £2,373 for retention monies and an alleged underpayment of £119. S applied for arbitration. The court ordere
DEFECTIVE WORK
NEGLIGENCE
NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS
SUB-SUBCONTRACTORS
SUBCONTRACTORS
QBD 18 January 1993. S were main contractors for a new stand at a cricket club. The contract was JCT Private Without Quantities Standard Form, 1980 edition. C were nominated subcontractors to supply and fix re-cast concrete decking units. The intention was to complete the appropriate forms of nominated subcontract agreements but, as often happens, C did not return the subcontract duly signed. S waived the stipulation stating that `this order will only become valid after we have received a signed copy of the subcontract` and relations were taken to be governed by standard forms. A sub-subcontractor, W, was engaged by C to carry out mastic jointing of the precast concrete units. This gave rise to allegations of defective work and a letter from S to C demanded £22,000 and threatened to initiate arbitration proceedings if the demand was not met. C issued a writ against S demanding £2,373 for retention monies and an alleged underpayment of £119. S applied for arbitration. The court ordere
DEFECTIVE WORK
NEGLIGENCE
NOMINATED SUBCONTRACTORS
SUB-SUBCONTRACTORS
SUBCONTRACTORS