000			01621cab a2200205 4500
001			##L131264
008			051013n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u131264
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aKlein, Rudi
245	0	0	_aWhen is a profit lost?
260			_c2005
490		0	_aConstruction News _v6937 6 October 2005, 26(1)
520			_aDiscusses the law relating to repudiation of a contract, where, although a contractor carries out work in accordance with the specification and programme, the client nevertheless terminates the contract prematurely. Although the issue has not been tested in the courts in this country, rulings in the USA and Australia may be relevant. In "Boomer v Muir" (24 P 2d 570 (1933)) the Supreme Court of California decided that a contractor was entitled not only to claim damages for breach of contract but also a quantum meruit, ie a reasonable or fair value for work carried out. In "Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Limited v Minister for Public Works" ((1992) 26 NSWLR 234) the New South Wales Court of Appeal held that the innocent party could elect either to sue for damages for breach of contract or a quantum meruit. The leading authority on the subject in this country, however, Keating on building contracts (ISBN 0421565306), states that a contractor does not have the option of ignoring the contract and claiming quantum meruit.
590			_aIKA251005
650	2	4	_aBOOMER V MUIR
650	2	4	_aRENARD CONSTRUCTIONS (ME) PTD LTD V MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORK
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c76004 _d76004