000			02105cab a22003015a 4500
001			L139836
008			070814s2007 xxk f 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u139836
041	0		_aeng
100	1		_aNeedham-Laing, Matthew
245	0	0	_aLetters of intent
260			_c2007
490		0	_aConstruction Law Review _v2007, 36-40(4)
520			_aExamines the use of letters of intent with reference to key case law. Looks at why letters of intent are used, the three main types of letters of intent, and the principles to be applied to determine if there was a concluded contract. "Emcor Drake and Scull Ltd v Robert McAlpine Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1017 (TCC), [2004] CILL 2132), "Mowlem plc v Stena Line Ports Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 2060 (TCC)), and "British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd" ([1983] BLR 95) are discussed as examples of cases where the courts have found there is a contract in existence of some form or another. Also discusses the situation where a dispute occurs because one of the parties thinks they have entered a contract and the other party disputes the existence of it, as illustrated by "Gurney Consulting Engineers v Pearson Pension Property Fund Ltd" ([2004] EWHC 1916 (TCC). Concludes by highlighting other pitfalls associated with letters of intent and summarising points that should be considered before signing a letter of intent.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aBRITISH STEEL CORPORATION V CLEVELAND BRIDGE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD
650	2	4	_aCO-OPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES V INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LTD
650	2	4	_aROSSITER V MILLER
650	2	4	_aPAGNAN SPA V FEED PRODUCTS LTD
650	2	4	_aEMCOR DRAKE AND SCULL LTD V ROBERT MCALPINE LTD
650	2	4	_aMOWLEM PLC V STENA LINE PORTS LTD
650	2	4	_aGURNEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS V PEARSON PENSION PROPERTY FUND LTD
650	2	4	_aG PERCY TRENTHAM LTD V ARCHITAL LUXFER LTD
650	2	4	_aCUNNINGHAM AND OTHERS V COLLETT AND FARMER
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
942			_n0
999			_c79099 _d79099