Rotherham MBC v Frank Haslam Milan and Co Ltd and Gleeson (Northern) Ltd
Language: English Series: Construction Law Journal ; [1996] 5 Const.L.J., 333-356(13)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: CA 22 March 1996. Unhydrated steel slag was specified in the bills of quantities, a material agreed upon by both contractor and Rotherham MBC. However, this material was unsuitable in confined spaces as it expanded on hydration, leading to heaving and cracking of the reinforced concrete slabs of Norfolk House (the project). The contractors appealed against the decision that they were in breach of terms as the material was not fit for its purpose and was not of merchantable standard. Appeal allowed. Held, Rotherham MBC had specified precise materials and that steel slag, having limited use, could not be unmerchantable.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS56154 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 21617-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
CA 22 March 1996. Unhydrated steel slag was specified in the bills of quantities, a material agreed upon by both contractor and Rotherham MBC. However, this material was unsuitable in confined spaces as it expanded on hydration, leading to heaving and cracking of the reinforced concrete slabs of Norfolk House (the project). The contractors appealed against the decision that they were in breach of terms as the material was not fit for its purpose and was not of merchantable standard. Appeal allowed. Held, Rotherham MBC had specified precise materials and that steel slag, having limited use, could not be unmerchantable.