Letters of intent and formation of contract
Series: Contract Journal ; 409(6338) 1 August 2001, 21(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: 0iscusses the case "Carillion Construction Ltd (trading as Crown House Engineering) v Ballast Plc", CA 12 July 2001 where the parties became involved in a dispute over payments claimed by Crown House. No formal contract was entered into but Ballast wrote a letter of intent to Crown House, stating its 'intention to enter into subcontract' for mechanical and electrical installations, on the basis of the latest revised price. Crown House argued that the letter was an acceptance of its quotation based upon the revised specification. However the Court of Appeal considered that a letter of intent would normally be insufficient to establish contractual agreements.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64319 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114065-1001 |
0iscusses the case "Carillion Construction Ltd (trading as Crown House Engineering) v Ballast Plc", CA 12 July 2001 where the parties became involved in a dispute over payments claimed by Crown House. No formal contract was entered into but Ballast wrote a letter of intent to Crown House, stating its 'intention to enter into subcontract' for mechanical and electrical installations, on the basis of the latest revised price. Crown House argued that the letter was an acceptance of its quotation based upon the revised specification. However the Court of Appeal considered that a letter of intent would normally be insufficient to establish contractual agreements.