| 000 | 01424cam a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS64620 | ||
| 008 | 011023n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u115254 | ||
| 100 | _aParisotti, | ||
| 245 | _aBe reasonable | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aBuilding _v266(805) 12 October 2001, 51(1) |
||
| 520 | _aExamines the problems caused by conflicting interpretations of contract terminology. Emphasises that the phrase 'reasonable skill and care' has a well established legal interpretation, but other familiar contract terms such as 'best endeavours' or 'best efforts' can have different interpretations for consultants and clients as illustrated in the case "Sheffield District Railways v Great Central Railway" (1911) which found 'best endeavours' to mean ' leave no stone unturned'. Warns that clients should also be wary of imposing a 'strict liability', and emphasises that 'reasonable skill and care' is usually the required standard in most forms of contract and common law. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aREASONABLE SKILL | ||
| 650 | _aREASONABLE CARE | ||
| 650 | _aNEGLIGENCE | ||
| 650 |
_aContracts _96232 |
||
| 650 | _aTERMINOLOGY | ||
| 650 | _aHAMMERSMITH HOSPITALS NHS TRUST V TROUP BYWATERS AND ANDERS | ||
| 650 | _aSHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAYS V GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY | ||
| 650 | _aINTERPRETATION | ||
| 690 | _aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c68639 _d68639 |
||