000			01909cam a2200229 4500
001			X126420
008			040604n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u126420
100			_aBrewer, G.
245			_aSettlement agreements
260			_c2004
490			_aContract Journal _v423(6473) 28 April 2004, 22(1)
520			_aDiscusses "Hurst Stores and Interiors Ltd v M L Europe Property Ltd" ([2004] EWCA Civ 490, [2004] CILL 2109 which concerned whether a purported settlement agreement was binding on the parties. H was a contractor on a project to develop a new headquarters for ML. H submitted a final account document for works which were extensively altered and delayed, which Mace (M), ML's construction manager, rejected. During the course of the works M had submitted over 500 Interim Statements of Account (ISAs) to H, which their project manager had routinely signed. Six months before completion M submitted a differently worded ISA, which substituted final for interim and inserted a page which said the calculated amount payable was to be accepted by H in full and final settlement. Again H's project manager signed, believing it to be similar to previous ones. H lost in adjudication and argued the project manager had no jurisdiction to enter into these agreements and had made a mistake in signing the controversial one. The case was dismissed on appeal. Points out that settlement agreements are important documents which generally depart from contract mechanisms. The clear authority of the signing parties must be obtained and the purpose of the document must be clear and unambiguous at the time of signing.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aHURST STORES AND INTERIORS LTD V M L EUROPE PROPERTY LTD
650			_aADJUDICATION
650			_aINTERIM STATEMENTS
650			_aSETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS
690			_aDISPUTE RESOLUTION _96236
942			_n0
999			_c117480 _d117480