000			01259cab a2200193 4500
001			##L133210
008			060420n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133210
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aButton, Roger
245	0	0	_aWrite exactly what you mean
260			_c2006
490		0	_aConstruction News _v(6962) 13 April 2006, 48(1)
520			_aReports the facts of, and comments upon, Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 69, unreported), which revolved around the definition of the term preferred supplier status. The CA held that when construing a contract, a court has to consider the background to the transaction, including pre-contract negotiations, as well as the literal meaning of the words. Therefore, although the term had no generally accepted meaning, and was not defined in the contract, P could produce evidence from the negotiations to support its view of the meaning of the term. The implications are that those preparing contracts must include definitions of any expressions that do not have precise and generally accepted meanings.
590			_aIKA250406
650	2	4	_aPROFORCE RECRUIT LTD V THE RUGBY GROUP LTD
690			_aMANAGEMENT-PROJECT MANAGEMENT-CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c76864 _d76864