000			02067cab a2200193 4500
001			##L133495
008			060512n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u133495
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aERDC Group Ltd v Brunel University
260			_c2006
520			_a[2006] EWHC 687 (TCC), 29 March 2006. B appointed E to carry out work under letters of intent, as execution of the contract documents was deferred until after the grant of full planning permission. E continued to carry out work even after the expiry of the last letter. After completing most of the work, E refused to sign the contract documents, claiming it would only continue if all work was valued on a quantum meruit basis rather than in accordance with JCT valuation rules. When B refused, E left the site without the work being completed. E argued there was no contract prior to the expiry of the letters of intent, and that the works both before and after the expiry of the last letter should therefore be valued on a quantum meruit. "Held": (1) there had been a clear intention to create legal relations, and the letters amounted to contracts. Work carried out prior to expiry of the letters of intent should be assessed in accordance with JCT valuation rules, and not on a quantum meruit; (2) work carried out after the expiry of the letters was recoverable upon a quantum meruit, but had to be assessed primarily by reference to the rates and prices for work done before that date; (3) as there was no contract when the defective work was carried out, B had no counterclaim in the proper sense; however, an adjustment was appropriate to reflect the sums paid by B to bring that work up to standard.
590			_aIKA230506
650	2	4	_aERDC GROUP LTD V BRUNEL UNIVERSITY
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aMANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION
856	4	1	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2006/687.html _zView the item free of charge at www.bailii.org..
942			_n0
999			_c77042 _d77042