000			02048cam a2200313 4500
001			ABS67692
008			040407n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125781
100			_aBrewer, G.
245			_aConsidering prescription
260			_c2004
490			_aContract Journal _v422(6467) 17 March 2004, 26(1)
520			_aLooks at "Musselburgh and Fisherrow Co-operative Society v Mowlem Scotland Ltd" (CA30/02, unreported), which examined where defects first come to light after completion. In "Musselburgh" it was discovered a swimming pool leaked after completion in 1992, due to three reasons. CS found that Musselburgh (M) had discovered first two leaks soon after completion, but had not tried to recover damages within five years of that date. The third defect was not discovered until 2002 and could not have been discovered until then. CS did not accept Mowlem's (MO) assertion that discovery of the first two leaks should have led to discovery of a third and that this was the date for the claim of all three leaks. Each should be treated as distinct separate defects. Found that M was entitled to press its claim against MO for third defect as prescription period for that claim had not expired. Note that in Scotland limitation is called prescription. View judgment at www.scotcourts.gov.uk/.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aMUSSELBURGH AND FISHERROW CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY V MOWLEM SCOTLAND LTD
650			_aCOMPLETION
650			_aSTATUTORY LIMITATION PERIOD
650			_aPRESCRIPTION
650			_aBREACH OF CONTRACT
650			_aSCOTLAND
650			_aLIMITATION ACT 1980
650			_aSCOTTISH EQUITABLE V MILLER CONSTRUCTION
650			_aLIMITATION
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-DEFECTS AND FAILURES-CASE LAW
856			_uhttps://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsv/ca30_02.html _zView decision on the Scottish Courts website...
856			_uhttps://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsv/ca30_02.html _zView decision on the Scottish Courts website...
942			_n0
999			_c117179 _d117179