| 000 | 00969cab a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS52404 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1995 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u76206 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 100 | _aPowell-Smith, V. | ||
| 245 | _aIt should go without saying | ||
| 260 | _c1995 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aContract Journal _v377(6014) 2 March 1995, 13(1) |
||
| 520 | _aArgues from caselaw that a breach of terms implied in a contract, is often difficult to establish as a challenge seldom arises. Cites five conditions for ascertaining the presence of a implied term as set out in "BP Refinery (Westernport) pty v Hastings Shire Council" (1977). | ||
| 650 | _aBP REFINERY (WESTERNPORT) PTY V HASTINGS SHIRE COUNCIL | ||
| 650 | _aCONTRACT | ||
| 650 | _aIMPLIED TERMS | ||
| 650 | _aMERTON LBC V STANLEY HUGH LEACH LTD | ||
| 650 | _aMOORCOCK PRINCIPLE | ||
| 690 | _aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c47954 _d47954 |
||