000			01746cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS68494
008			041220n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u128357
100			_aAtkinson, D.
245			_aMake intentions clear
260			_c2004
490			_aConstruction News _v (6897) 16 December 2004, 25(1)
520			_aDiscusses how letters of intent can leave contractors out of pocket on complex jobs. Suggests it is always best to make time to write a contract and clearly state costs. Looks at "Mowlem plc v Stena Line Ports Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2206 (TCC) unreported), where the judge ruled a letter of intent was not limited to work before that date and that it was bizarre if the limit could be avoided by simply exceeding it. Points out that a letter of intent usually states the employers intention to contract with the contractor and promises that if a contract is not concluded, the employer will pay the contractor's costs up to a given limit. If a contractor then continues to work after the cost limit has been reached, it is not automatically entitled to payment for this extra work. Recommends that if the contractor thinks that the cost limit imposed for the work is too low for the work carried out, it should stop work. Suggests the parties always try to conclude a contract and if they cannot, they should make sure both parties know what will signal the end of the contractor's obligations under the letter of intent.
590			_aABS
590			_aABS
650			_aLETTERS OF INTENT
650			_aMOWLEM PLC v STENA LINE PORTS LTD
650			_aIMPLIED TERMS
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aBUILDING CONTRACTORS
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CONTRACTS-CASE LAW
942			_n0
999			_c118468 _d118468