000			01288cam a2200229 4500
001			ABS64411
008			010907n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u114475
100			_aBrewer, G
245			_aEstoppel
260			_c2001
490			_aContract Journal _v410(6342) 30 August 2001, 20(1)
520			_aConsiders the case "Lewisham LBC v Shephard Hill Engineering", TCC, 30 July 2001, which considered the issue of whether representations not to deduct delay damages may amount to an estoppel against the employer's contractual rights. In arbitration it had been decided that Shephard Hill had completed sections of the works late but would not have to pay delay damages because Lewisham had promised not to deduct delay damages and could not change its mind later; hence the application to overturn the arbitrator's decision was refused. The implication is that an estoppel will occur where one party represents that it does not intend to enforce its legal rights and the other party acts in reliance upon this representation.
590			_aABS
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aDELAY DAMAGES
650			_aLEGAL RIGHTS
650			_aHUGHES V METROPOLITAN RAILWAY
650			_aLEWISHAM LBC V SHEPHARD HILL ENGINEERING
690			_aLAW-UK
942			_n0
999			_c68194 _d68194