000			01477cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS67033
008			031002n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u123827
100			_aParisotti, M.
245			_aNo dinners for doggies
260			_c2003
490			_aBuilding _v268(8298) 5 September 2003, 49(1)
520			_aDiscusses the case "Aqua Design and Play International Ltd and another v Kier Regional Ltd" ([2002] EWCA Civ 797, X12140) in the context of the "contra proferentum" rule where there is doubt over the meaning of contractual terms. Here, K was appointed to fit out a health and fitness centre, subcontractors were appointed, then H became insolvent. Under K's subcontracts, there was a pay when paid clause but as K made its own amendments to the DOM/1 conditions it announced it wouldn't be paying out to the subcontractors. They however implied that DOM/1 incorporated all the published corrections so the pay when paid clause should be deemed to be deleted. K took the case to CA but the judges took a different view and decided that the "contra proferentum" did not apply here and should not be brought out at the first hint of ambiguity. (See also Abs64856 and Abs64856).
590			_aABS
650			_aCONTRA PROFERENTUM
650			_aAQUA DESIGN AND PLAY INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER V KIER REGIONAL LTD
650			_aDOM/1
650			_aCONTRACTUAL TERMS
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
942			_n0
999			_c73544 _d73544