| 000 | 00948cam a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS60955 | ||
| 008 | 000000n1999 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u101501 | ||
| 100 | _aMoore, L. | ||
| 245 | 4 | _aThe high cost of tainted advice. | |
| 260 | _c1999 | ||
| 490 |
_aProperty Week _v 64(27) 9 July 1999, 32-33(2) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines the implications of the case Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships) v Mott MacDonald Group Ltd and others, where the defendants were found to have fallen short of a reasonable standard in acting as an environmental consultant on a reclamation and redevelopment scheme. Emphasises the importance of clarity when instructions are given to such consultants, and the need for consultants to be clear when giving advice and reporting findings. | ||
| 650 | _aREGENERATION | ||
| 650 | _aREDEVELOPMENT | ||
| 650 | _aRECLAMATION | ||
| 690 | _aENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND CONSULTANCY | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c60633 _d60633 |
||