Image from Google Jackets

Rosehaugh Stanhope v Redpath Dorman Long

Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; (1990) CILL 5096-598(3)Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 26 June 1990. Appeal by RDL against a HC decision for damages for loss and expense against trade contractors . RS entered into contracts with various trade contractors including RDL. RS appointed Bovis/Schal Joint Venture as construction manager . RS sought damages in the HC on the basis that RDL had not completed by contractual completion date. The contract manager had made a bone fide estimate for loss and damage. RS argued that construction manager should have extended the completion dates beyond dates of actual completion and that completion date had been settled, they could not be bound for damages for failure to complete on time. They also claimed that they were entitled to set off their claim in separate proceedings. It was held that there was not evidence in the contract between parties of a breach of contract and that the Management contractor had not power to decide whether RDL had breached their contract. Appeal allowed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS43032 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 40075-1001

CA 26 June 1990. Appeal by RDL against a HC decision for damages for loss and expense against trade contractors . RS entered into contracts with various trade contractors including RDL. RS appointed Bovis/Schal Joint Venture as construction manager . RS sought damages in the HC on the basis that RDL had not completed by contractual completion date. The contract manager had made a bone fide estimate for loss and damage. RS argued that construction manager should have extended the completion dates beyond dates of actual completion and that completion date had been settled, they could not be bound for damages for failure to complete on time. They also claimed that they were entitled to set off their claim in separate proceedings. It was held that there was not evidence in the contract between parties of a breach of contract and that the Management contractor had not power to decide whether RDL had breached their contract. Appeal allowed.