Letters of intent
Needham-Laing, Matthew
Letters of intent - 2007 - Construction Law Review 2007, 36-40(4) .
Examines the use of letters of intent with reference to key case law. Looks at why letters of intent are used, the three main types of letters of intent, and the principles to be applied to determine if there was a concluded contract. "Emcor Drake and Scull Ltd v Robert McAlpine Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1017 (TCC), [2004] CILL 2132), "Mowlem plc v Stena Line Ports Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2060 (TCC)), and "British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd" ([1983] BLR 95) are discussed as examples of cases where the courts have found there is a contract in existence of some form or another. Also discusses the situation where a dispute occurs because one of the parties thinks they have entered a contract and the other party disputes the existence of it, as illustrated by "Gurney Consulting Engineers v Pearson Pension Property Fund Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1916 (TCC). Concludes by highlighting other pitfalls associated with letters of intent and summarising points that should be considered before signing a letter of intent.
BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION V CLEVELAND BRIDGE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
CO-OPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES V INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LTD
ROSSITER V MILLER
PAGNAN SPA V FEED PRODUCTS LTD
EMCOR DRAKE AND SCULL LTD V ROBERT MCALPINE LTD
MOWLEM PLC V STENA LINE PORTS LTD
GURNEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS V PEARSON PENSION PROPERTY FUND LTD
G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V ARCHITAL LUXFER LTD
CUNNINGHAM AND OTHERS V COLLETT AND FARMER
England and Wales--1543-
Letters of intent - 2007 - Construction Law Review 2007, 36-40(4) .
Examines the use of letters of intent with reference to key case law. Looks at why letters of intent are used, the three main types of letters of intent, and the principles to be applied to determine if there was a concluded contract. "Emcor Drake and Scull Ltd v Robert McAlpine Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1017 (TCC), [2004] CILL 2132), "Mowlem plc v Stena Line Ports Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2060 (TCC)), and "British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd" ([1983] BLR 95) are discussed as examples of cases where the courts have found there is a contract in existence of some form or another. Also discusses the situation where a dispute occurs because one of the parties thinks they have entered a contract and the other party disputes the existence of it, as illustrated by "Gurney Consulting Engineers v Pearson Pension Property Fund Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1916 (TCC). Concludes by highlighting other pitfalls associated with letters of intent and summarising points that should be considered before signing a letter of intent.
BRITISH STEEL CORPORATION V CLEVELAND BRIDGE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
CO-OPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES V INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LTD
ROSSITER V MILLER
PAGNAN SPA V FEED PRODUCTS LTD
EMCOR DRAKE AND SCULL LTD V ROBERT MCALPINE LTD
MOWLEM PLC V STENA LINE PORTS LTD
GURNEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS V PEARSON PENSION PROPERTY FUND LTD
G PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V ARCHITAL LUXFER LTD
CUNNINGHAM AND OTHERS V COLLETT AND FARMER
England and Wales--1543-