The Act requires written terms
Series: Construction News ; (6784) 19 September 2002, 22(1)Publication details: 2002Subject(s):- HOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996 S107
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
- R J T CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD V D M ENGINEERING (NI) LTD
- ORAL AGREEMENTS
- WRITTEN EVIDENCE
- BUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS66002 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 120177-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 s107 says that qualifying contracts must be in writing if the Act is to apply. The meaning of the phrase has been considered in the case of "RJT Consulting engineers v DM Engineering (NI)" (2001) where both RJT and DM had an oral contract of construction operations as defined in s105 of the Act. This point was not disputed by either party, but RJT argued that the whole agreement had to be in writing if the contract was to be bound by the Act and the adjudicator to have any jurisdiction. The significance of the case being that all the terms and not just the existence of a contract should be evident in writing if the contract is to qualify being referred to adjudication.