000			01268cab a2200217 4500
001			##L134461
008			060808n2006 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u134461
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aBrewer, Geoff
245	0	0	_aProvisional sums
260			_c2006
490		0	_aContract Journal _v434(6586) 2 August 2006, 21(1)
520			_aConsiders the implications of the recent CA decision in "Midland Expressway Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd and others" ([2006] EWCA Civ 936, unreported), where C's appeal against a decision that provisional sums contained in a contract between it and M should be deducted from the final contract price was dismissed. It is thus clear that even where a contract fails to set out the rules for expenditure of a provisional sum, it is to be understood that the provisional sum is to be omitted in calculating the final account, and that a valuation of the work actually carried out substituted for it.
590			_aIKA220806
650	2	4	_aMIDLAND EXPRESSWAY LTD V CARILLION CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS
650	2	4	_aST MODWEN DEVELOPMENTS LTD V BOWMER AND KIRKLAND
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c77529 _d77529