Actionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering InGl En SpA and another
Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; [2001] CILL 1793-1795(3)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: CA 10 October 2001. The appellant (A) entered into a labour only subcontract with the respondent's (S) main contract (I), which owed A substantial sums when it was subsequently wound up. A alleged that it had only continued to supply labour after entering into an oral agreement that S would ensure it would be paid. S contended that this was a guarantee and that, as there was no written record, the Statute of Frauds 1677 s4 meant that it could not be enforced. "Held" : The appeal was dismissed. If, however, I had been a party to the arrangement it might have been possible to read it as facilitating the payment of I'd debts rather than meeting them after I had defaulted. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | X116027 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116027-1001 |
CA 10 October 2001. The appellant (A) entered into a labour only subcontract with the respondent's (S) main contract (I), which owed A substantial sums when it was subsequently wound up. A alleged that it had only continued to supply labour after entering into an oral agreement that S would ensure it would be paid. S contended that this was a guarantee and that, as there was no written record, the Statute of Frauds 1677 s4 meant that it could not be enforced. "Held" : The appeal was dismissed. If, however, I had been a party to the arrangement it might have been possible to read it as facilitating the payment of I'd debts rather than meeting them after I had defaulted. View judgment at www.courtservice.gov.uk.