Opening Pandora's box
Language: English Series: Building ; 272(8496) 7 September 2007, 55(1)Publication details: 2007Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the possible implications of government proposals to remove the requirement for construction contracts to be in writing. Argues that this proposal would let the adjudicator decide what the contract is or not, which could lead to a number of problems. Suggests there may be an increase in the use of clauses that aim to exclude anything extraneous from being part of the contract. In addition, more cases could follow on from adjudication because the adjudicator incorrectly concludes what the contract is.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L140162 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 140162-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Discusses the possible implications of government proposals to remove the requirement for construction contracts to be in writing. Argues that this proposal would let the adjudicator decide what the contract is or not, which could lead to a number of problems. Suggests there may be an increase in the use of clauses that aim to exclude anything extraneous from being part of the contract. In addition, more cases could follow on from adjudication because the adjudicator incorrectly concludes what the contract is.