000			01372cam a2200229 4500
001			X110019
008			000000n2000 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u110019
100			_aUsher, C
245			_aCome to a conclusion
260			_c2000
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0048) 2 December 2000, 114(1)
520			_aLooks at the implications of a CA case relating to local authority procurement on property development. The case,"Rice v Great Yarmouth BC" (CA [2003] TCLR 1)concerns two garden maintenance contracts where the council terminated the contracts, having served a number of default notices on Rice. Rice began proceedings claiming the council was not entitled to terminate the contracts. He won the case and the appeal. The article shows that this case has implications for property development as clauses dealing with termination of development agreements are worded similar to the equivalent clauses in the contracts in Rice. To avoid a similar situation, the article concludes that, if possible, specify which terms in a contract are to be conditions, breach of which will leave the contract liable to termination.
590			_aABS
650			_aContracts _96232
650			_aProcurement-old
650			_aPROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
650			_aRICE V GREAT YARMOUTH BC
650			_aLOCAL AUTHORITY
690			_aLAW-UK
942			_n0
999			_c65623 _d65623