Who needs contracts
Series: Building ; 266(8212) 30 November 2001, 50-51(2)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Questions the traditional view that a contract is vital in construction work, and suggests that the courts may force employers and contractors to accept their 'contractual obligations' even in the absence of an agreed deal. Argues that contract and no-contract situations have become more similar as illustrated by "Birse Construction v St David" and "Serck Controls v Drake & Scull Engineering". The two cases challenged the assumptions that without a contract the price for the job is unknown, there is no obligation as to time, there is no remedy for late or defective work, and there is no loss and expense. Concludes that the courts appear willing to take a contractual line in situations where no contract has been negotiated.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS64980 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 116414-1001 |
Questions the traditional view that a contract is vital in construction work, and suggests that the courts may force employers and contractors to accept their 'contractual obligations' even in the absence of an agreed deal. Argues that contract and no-contract situations have become more similar as illustrated by "Birse Construction v St David" and "Serck Controls v Drake & Scull Engineering". The two cases challenged the assumptions that without a contract the price for the job is unknown, there is no obligation as to time, there is no remedy for late or defective work, and there is no loss and expense. Concludes that the courts appear willing to take a contractual line in situations where no contract has been negotiated.