000			02002cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS67428
008			040206n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u125085
100			_aCottam, G.
245			_aIn the dock: vague clauses and reluctant adjudicators
260			_c2003
490			_aConstruction News _v (6843) 20 November 2003, 16(1)
520			_aIn "Thomas-Fredric's (Construction) Ltd v Keith Wilson" ([2003] EWCA Civ 1494, [2004] BLR 23-30(8) the case centred on whether or not the contract was evidenced in writing, as required by the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. A contract had been entered into with Thomas-Fredric (T-F) for the construction of two dwellings on land at the rear of Keith Wilson's home (K). The agreement was terminated and a second agreement entered into for completion of the work. The second gave rise to a dispute. It was made orally and was evidenced by a letter from the developer's surveyor to T-F, which stated that further payments would be made on condition that the value of the work is carried out diligently and that the value of the works is considered correct to that amount. K countersigned this, on behalf of Gowersand Ltd. Later dispute hinged on this, as it highlighted lack of clarity in correspondence. Article also examines issue of time limit for decisions, as highlighted in "St Andrews Bay Development Ltd v H B G Management Ltd" ([2003] CILL 2016, Abs66798).
590			_aABS
650			_aHOUSING GRANTS, CONSTRUCTION AND REGENERATION ACT 1996
650			_aTHOMAS-FREDRIC'S (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V WILSON
650			_aST ANDREWS BAY DEVELOPMENT LTD V H B G MANAGEMENT LTD
650			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION-ADJUDICATION
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
690			_aMANGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
942			_n0
999			_c74145 _d74145