000			01569cam a2200241 4500
001			ABS63102
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u109496
100			_aBrown, J
245			_aClarified better
260			_c2000
490			_aBuilding _v265(8161) 10 November 2000, 70(1)
520			_aDiscusses the CA ruling in the "Henry Boot Construction v Alstom Combined Cycles" case, and suggests that the updated ICE form of contract may have avoided confrontation. The contract between Boot and Alstom was for civil engineering works for a power station, and a price of £250,880 was agreed for temporary sheet piling work in one area. Problems arose when variations were added to the contract and questions were raised about how to value this additional work. The CA ruling has clarified the way variations should be valued, by giving Boot the benefit of using its price of £250,880 for the original sheet piling work to form the basis of the variation, not withstanding any errors. Examines the changes to Clause 52 introduced by the ICE 7th Edition contract, and highlights how these alterations would have identified problems early on and thus benefited Alstom, whose part in the confrontation proved costly.
590			_aABS
650			_aValuation _96273
650			_aVARIATIONS
650			_aCONTRACT CLAIMS
650			_aENGINEERING CONTRACTS
650			_aICE FORMS OF CONTRACT
650			_aHENRY BOOT CONSTRUCTION V ALSTOM COMBINED CYCLES
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
942			_n0
999			_c65373 _d65373