000			01529cab a2200217 4500
001			ABS38690
008			090401t1987 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u11980
041			_aeng
245			_aTemloc Ltd v Errill Properties Ltd
260			_c1987
350			_a0
490			_aConstruction Industry Law Letter _v1987 CILL 376-377(2)
520			_aCA 29 July 1987. An appeal on a preliminary issue from a decision in the ORC. The contractors (T) agreed to erect retail units for the developers (E) under a JCT 1980 contract. In the appendix to the contract, there was an item "liquidated and ascertained damages", to be awarded under cl. 24.2 "at the rate" for which the figure had been filled in as " nil". T completed the work late. At issue was the construction of JCT 1980 cl 24 . T contended that liquidated damages were simply to be nil; E said that " nil" indicated that cl. 24 was to be excluded altogether from the contract. It was held in the CA, finding against E, that cl. 24 dealt comprehensively with the employer`s right to damages for late completion , whether liquidated or not. It was impossible to attribute to parties an intention that the employer should have the option of claiming unliquidated damages , when they had agreed that liquidated damages of the same character should be nil.
650			_aASCERTAINED DAMAGES
650			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
650			_aCLAIMS
690			_aBUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c7657 _d7657