000			01294cab a2200349 4500
001			ABS53283
008			090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u3244
041			_aeng
100			_aTaylor, P.
245			_aRight words at the right time
260			_c1995
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Times _v(1286) 30 June 1995, 6(1)
520			_aExamines how commonly used words, including `without prejudice`, `subject to contract`, `proper and reasonable` and `reasonable and best endeavors`, have been interpreted by the courts and why it is important to choose these words carefully.
650			_aCOMMISSION FOR THE NEW TOWNS V COOPER (GREAT BRITAIN)
650			_aDEFINITIONS
650			_aHAVENRIDGE V BOSTON DYERS
650			_aHOOPER AND SHERMAN
650			_aIBM (UK) V ROCKWARE GLASS
650			_aIPERION INVESTMENTS V BROADWALK HOUSE RESIDENTS
650			_aP&O PROPERTY HOLDINGS V NORWICH UNION LIFE ASSURANCE
650			_aPIPS (LEISURE PRODUCTIONS) V WALTON
650			_aPROPER AND REASONABLE
650			_aREASONABLE AND BEST ENDEAVOURS
650			_aSUBJECT TO CONTRACT
650			_aUBH (MECHANICAL SERVICES) V STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE
650			_aWITHOUT PREJUDICE
690			_aLAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c1984 _d1984