| 000 | 01106cab a2200193 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ##L132205 | ||
| 008 | 060117n2006 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u132205 | ||
| 041 | 0 | _aeng | |
| 100 | 1 | _aHenchie, Nick | |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | _aInadmissable evidence |
| 260 | _c2006 | ||
| 490 | 0 |
_aBuilding _v270(8413) 13 January 2006, 54(1) |
|
| 520 | _aConsiders the situation where either the inability of parties to a contract to express unambiguously the bargain that they have reached, or to inadvertently incorporate terms that contradict the deal, by using a standard form of contract, often leads to disputes, particularly over design responsibility. As English law prevents parties from referring to pre-contract discussions and negotiations to aid interpretation, this can lead to a contract being interpreted in a way that does not give effect to the true intentions of the parties. | ||
| 590 | _aIKA170106 | ||
| 650 | 2 | 4 | _aEMCOR DRAKE AND SCULL LTD V EDINBURGH ROYAL JOINT VENTURE AND OTHERS |
| 690 | _aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c76364 _d76364 |
||