000			01113cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS50816
008			090401t1994 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u57679
041			_aeng
245			_aBanque Paribas v Venaglass Limited
260			_c1994
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v(1994) CILL 918-919(2)
520			_aCA 31 January 1994. A freehold owner of a site (V) entered into a a development agreement with a developer. The developer ran into financial difficulties and V served notice of termination. Under Schedule 4 of the agreement, V became obligated to pay the developer the value of work done. At first instance on the issue of the meaning of Schedule 4 the court rejected the cost based approach contended by B. On appeal CA held in favour of B; the value of the works was to be ascertained by reference to fair and reasonable remuneration for demolition and construction work carried out.
650			_aDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
650			_aVALUATION CLAUSES
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c35195 _d35195