000			02170cam a2200265 4500
001			ABS66760
008			030609n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u122551
245			_aActionstrength Ltd v International Glass Engineering InGl En SpA another
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding Law Reports _v[2003] BLR 207-216(10)
520			_a[2003] UKHL 17, 3 April 2003. Second defendant S retained first defendant (I) as main contractor for construction of a new factory. A was a labour-only subcontractor which supplied labour to I. I got into arrears with payments and A threatened to withdraw its labour. A claimed that S made an oral promise to A at a meeting between their representatives to pay any money owing if I did not pay. When A was unable to obtain payment from I, A sought to enforce S's promise to pay. S relied on lack of signed writing to support the guarantee required by Statute of Frauds 1677 s4. CA ([2001] EWCA Civ 1477, Abs64625) allowed appeal by S on the grounds that the oral guarantee was enforceable under s4 of the 1677 Act. A appealed to HL claiming that S was estopped from relying on s4. HL held that there was nothing in writing to show that A was the beneficiary of an effective guarantee. To permit an estoppel to avoid the application of the statute to a guarantee would be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1677 Statute. To admit an estoppel would repeal the statute and would frustrate the continued operation of s4. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk (see also Abs666761).
590			_aABS
650			_aACTIONSTRENGTH LTD V INTERNATIONAL GLASS ENGINEERING INGL EN SPA AND ANOTHER
650			_aSTATUTE OF FRAUDS 1677
650			_aORAL AGREEMENTS
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aPROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
650			_aPROPRIETARY ESTOPPEL
650			_aGUARANTEES
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
856			_uhttps://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030403/action-1.htm _zView judgment on the UK Parliament website...
942			_n0
999			_c72839 _d72839