| 000 | 01024cab a2200241 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | X96829 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1999 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u91495 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | 4 | _aThe Royal Brompton National Health Trust v Frederick Alexander Hammon & others | |
| 260 | _c1999 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v[1999] CILL, 1464-1467(4) |
||
| 520 | _aTechnology & Construction Court 8 January 1999. Biggin v Permanite reviewed. Was a claim that the magnitude of the number of instructions issued to the contractor causing loss and expense necessarily bad in principle? How widely should the principle in "Biggin v Permanite" be interpreted and applied? | ||
| 650 | _aARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS | ||
| 650 | _aBIGGIN V PERMANITE | ||
| 650 | _aCONTRACTORS | ||
| 650 | _aLOSS | ||
| 650 | _aSUBCONTRACTORS | ||
| 690 | _aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c22/02/1999 | ||
| 999 |
_c58084 _d58084 |
||