Interpreting the assignment of contracts
Language: English Series: Chartered Surveyor Weekly ; 39(8) 21 May 1992, 55(1)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: Highlights the subtleties, and warns of the consequences, of interpreting ambiguous and inconsistant contract forms. Refers to two CA cases on contract assignment: "Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd" and "St Martins Corporation & St Martins Property Investments Ltd v Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd", where a distinction was made between `benefit of` and `benefit under` the contract.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS46329 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 57835-1001 |
Highlights the subtleties, and warns of the consequences, of interpreting ambiguous and inconsistant contract forms. Refers to two CA cases on contract assignment: "Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd" and "St Martins Corporation & St Martins Property Investments Ltd v Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd", where a distinction was made between `benefit of` and `benefit under` the contract.