Image from Google Jackets

Haden Young Limited v Laing O'Rourke Midlands Limited [electronic resource]

Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2008] EWHC 1016 (TCC), 8 May 2008. The case turned around the formation of contract and the danger of proceeding with work before a contract has been concluded. Laing O'Rourke (L), main contractor, was in charge of the design and construction project of the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, and Haden Young (H), a subcontractor, of the mechanical and electrical works. A dispute arose between them as to the existence of as sub contract. For (H), there was no contract as all essential terms were not agreed but it had completed the work and been paid by reference to the terms of a side subcontract. For (L), a contract had been made even though there was no executed contract. Held: The parties had approached argument on both the liability for consequential loss and the limit of liability under the warranties. They had not set a limit of liability for consequential loss under the subcontract and by evidence, for both parties, this was essential to the formation of a contract. The judge decided that the scope of works was not essential to the formation f a contract. Even without contract, (H) was entitled to reasonable remuneration under a quantum merit for works carried out.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report Virtual Online ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 145108-1001

[2008] EWHC 1016 (TCC), 8 May 2008. The case turned around the formation of contract and the danger of proceeding with work before a contract has been concluded. Laing O'Rourke (L), main contractor, was in charge of the design and construction project of the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, and Haden Young (H), a subcontractor, of the mechanical and electrical works. A dispute arose between them as to the existence of as sub contract. For (H), there was no contract as all essential terms were not agreed but it had completed the work and been paid by reference to the terms of a side subcontract. For (L), a contract had been made even though there was no executed contract. Held: The parties had approached argument on both the liability for consequential loss and the limit of liability under the warranties. They had not set a limit of liability for consequential loss under the subcontract and by evidence, for both parties, this was essential to the formation of a contract. The judge decided that the scope of works was not essential to the formation f a contract. Even without contract, (H) was entitled to reasonable remuneration under a quantum merit for works carried out.