000			01435cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS47591
008			090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u62575
041			_aeng
245			_aLamacrest (Contracts) Ltd v J I Case Europe Ltd
260			_c1992
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1992 CILL 790-791(2)
520			_aCA 19 September 1991. The defendants (C) owned a factory and appointed the claimants (L) to carry out refurbishment work to the floor. C sued L for breach of an implied warranty of fitness and also argued that L was in breach of a subsequent agreement in failing to complete the work as agreed and in failing to effect the repairs. L denied the existence of any warranty. In addition L denied that they were in breach of the subsequent agreement, as C had repudiated the agreement by refusing to make any further payments until the agreed work had been completed. L applied for leave to appeal on two questions of fact. The court decided that L did not need leave to appeal. It was "held" that leave to appeal is limited to the question or questions of fact for which leave has been given. Accordingly, it was necessary to obtain leave.
650			_aBREACH OF CONTRACT
650			_aCONTRACTORS
650			_aMCALPINE HUMBEROAK LTD V MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL INC
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c38859 _d38859