000			01709cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS67449
008			040206n2004 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125079
100			_aYule, I.
245			_aI've put the bomb there
260			_c2004
490			_aBuilding _v269(8316) 23 January 2004, 52(1)
520			_aExamines the consequences of a the case Six Continents Ltd vs Carford Catering. Here, Carford, (a firm of project managers) had been employed to manage the design and installation of kitchen equipment. A fire later occurred at the restaurant and the owners sued Carford for losses caused by the fire as the manufacturing instructions made it clear that under no circumstances should a unit be fitted directly onto a heat sensitive surface. Carford responded by arguing that during an inspection its engineer had made a constructive recommendation in a warning letter that may have prevented the fire. In the CA the judge noted that it was very difficult to see how such a letter could rescue Carford as their contract required them to take steps to prevent fire not simply to warn about its risks. The CA approach was influenced by Fairchild vs Glenhaven Funeral services Ltd ([2002] UKHL 22, Abs 65719) where a worker had contracted an industrial disease through inhaling asbestos dust and the HL had concluded that both the employers were liable allowing the client to receive damages
590			_aABS
650			_aSIX CONTINENTS LTD V CARFORD CATERING
650			_aFAIRCHILD V GLENHAVEN FUNERAL SERVICE LTD AND OTHERS
650			_aPROJECT MANAGER
650			_aFIRE PREVENTION
650			_aDESIGN MANAGEMENT
690			_aProject management _96261
942			_n0
999			_c74141 _d74141