Still no answer: third party damage and the legal black hole
Series: Construction Law Reports ; 18(1) January 2001, 113-121(9)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Argues that the decision of the HL in "Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd" (2000) does not help resolve the significant issues of contract and third party damage raised by that case. Considers the central issue of the Alfred McAlpine case, which was the proper measure of damage where a party in breach of a contract fails to supply promised goods and services to the recipient who's willing to pay for them.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63530 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111230-1001 |
Argues that the decision of the HL in "Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd" (2000) does not help resolve the significant issues of contract and third party damage raised by that case. Considers the central issue of the Alfred McAlpine case, which was the proper measure of damage where a party in breach of a contract fails to supply promised goods and services to the recipient who's willing to pay for them.