Estoppel
Series: Contract Journal ; 410(6342) 30 August 2001, 20(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Considers the case "Lewisham LBC v Shephard Hill Engineering", TCC, 30 July 2001, which considered the issue of whether representations not to deduct delay damages may amount to an estoppel against the employer's contractual rights. In arbitration it had been decided that Shephard Hill had completed sections of the works late but would not have to pay delay damages because Lewisham had promised not to deduct delay damages and could not change its mind later; hence the application to overturn the arbitrator's decision was refused. The implication is that an estoppel will occur where one party represents that it does not intend to enforce its legal rights and the other party acts in reliance upon this representation.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64411 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 114475-1001 |
Considers the case "Lewisham LBC v Shephard Hill Engineering", TCC, 30 July 2001, which considered the issue of whether representations not to deduct delay damages may amount to an estoppel against the employer's contractual rights. In arbitration it had been decided that Shephard Hill had completed sections of the works late but would not have to pay delay damages because Lewisham had promised not to deduct delay damages and could not change its mind later; hence the application to overturn the arbitrator's decision was refused. The implication is that an estoppel will occur where one party represents that it does not intend to enforce its legal rights and the other party acts in reliance upon this representation.