Investigates how a compromise agreement can be legal and binding
Series: Contract Journal ; 408(6324) 25 April 2001, 29(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s):- JOSEPH FINNEY PLC V GORDON VICKERS AND GARY VICKS T/A THE MILL HOTEL
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS
- JCT STANDARD FORM OF BUILDING CONTRACT (1980 EDITION)
- DISPUTE RESOLUTION
- BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CONTRACTS-JCT CONTRACTS
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63944 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 112921-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Illustrates through "Joseph Finney Plc v Gordon Vickers and Gary Vickers t/a The Mill Hotel" how a compromise agreement can be binding and a promise not to adjudicate is a promise of value. The case arose from confusion over particular amendments to the JCT 1980 standard form, and concerned a compromise agreement between the parties to avoid adjudication.