Through the looking glass
Series: Building ; 269(8348) 10 September 2004, 54-55(2)Publication details: 2004Subject(s): Summary: The legal requirement for a construction agreement to be in writing seems to have little justification. In "Murray Building Contractors v Spree Developments" (HC, unreported) the HC found that a direction to the subcontractor (M) to 'forward your costs once finalised and agreed' was not a binding agreement on price. There is no justification for the insistance of having an agreement in writing. It would be better to have an oral promise and let adjudicators use their discretion on disputes over price.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS68185 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 127598-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
The legal requirement for a construction agreement to be in writing seems to have little justification. In "Murray Building Contractors v Spree Developments" (HC, unreported) the HC found that a direction to the subcontractor (M) to 'forward your costs once finalised and agreed' was not a binding agreement on price. There is no justification for the insistance of having an agreement in writing. It would be better to have an oral promise and let adjudicators use their discretion on disputes over price.