| 000 | 01114cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS68185 | ||
| 008 | 041001n2004 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u127598 | ||
| 100 | _aBingham, T. | ||
| 245 | _aThrough the looking glass | ||
| 260 | _c2004 | ||
| 490 |
_aBuilding _v269(8348) 10 September 2004, 54-55(2) |
||
| 520 | _aThe legal requirement for a construction agreement to be in writing seems to have little justification. In "Murray Building Contractors v Spree Developments" (HC, unreported) the HC found that a direction to the subcontractor (M) to 'forward your costs once finalised and agreed' was not a binding agreement on price. There is no justification for the insistance of having an agreement in writing. It would be better to have an oral promise and let adjudicators use their discretion on disputes over price. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aMURRAY BUILDING CONTRACTORS V SPREE DEVELOPMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aSUBCONTRACTORS | ||
| 650 | _aWRITTEN AGREEMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aORAL AGREEMENTS | ||
| 690 | _aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CONTRACTS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c118103 _d118103 |
||