Exclusion zone
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0205) 2 February 2002, 124-125(2)Publication details: 2002Subject(s): Summary: Discusses why the introduction of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not mean the end of the use of collateral warranties.The Act, the result of a House of Lords ruling following "Murphy V Brentwood DC "[1991], sought to ensure that all third parties with a present or future interest in a premises would have the same rights as the original developer to sue on the principal contract, so that all third parties would benefit equally. However, few major parties have wanted to depart from the previous use of warranties for various reasons, primarily because the new Act would not necessarily solve the limitations of warranties. Concludes that only an economic slowdown, leading to the need to save costs, will lead to funding institutions promoting the new Act.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS65194 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116831-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses why the introduction of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not mean the end of the use of collateral warranties.The Act, the result of a House of Lords ruling following "Murphy V Brentwood DC "[1991], sought to ensure that all third parties with a present or future interest in a premises would have the same rights as the original developer to sue on the principal contract, so that all third parties would benefit equally. However, few major parties have wanted to depart from the previous use of warranties for various reasons, primarily because the new Act would not necessarily solve the limitations of warranties. Concludes that only an economic slowdown, leading to the need to save costs, will lead to funding institutions promoting the new Act.