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 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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.