000			01567cab a2200193 4500
001			##L131212
008			051007n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131212
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBingham, Tony
245	0	0	_aWar of the words
260			_c2005
490		0	_aBuilding _v270 (38) 23 September 2005, 73 (1)
520			_aDiscusses the events of "Robertson Group (Construction) Ltd v Amey Miller Joint Venture" ([2005] CSOH 60, unreported). Amey Miller (AM) subcontracted building work to Robertson Construction (R). R started work under the terms of a letter of intent, which was limited to £500 000. This limit was continuously exceeded, until the work done reached a total of £5m. At this point, the arrangement came to an end. R's attempt to claim overheads and profits was resisted by AM, who argued that R was entitled only to direct costs and directly incurred losses. The court rejected AM's argument; it said if the word loss did not cover general overheads and an element of profit, a contractor would have to support corporate overheads from other sources of income. If overheads and profits were not recoverable, the failure to earn such sums from turnover could be described as loss. R was entitled to direct costs and directly incurred losses, which inevitably included an element of profit.
590			_aIKA111005
650	2	4	_aROBERTSON GROUP (CONSTRUCTION) LTD V AMEY MILLER JOINT VENTURE
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ADVOCACY
942			_n0
999			_c75988 _d75988