Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The arbitrator who first dealt with Davis Contractors' claim held that "the footing of the contract was removed" and therefore the original contract had come to an end. [ 1 ] On referral to the House of Lords , the Lords held that although the performance of the contract had become more onerous, it was not frustrated.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, 49, (a case actually concerning "reflective loss" in UK company law) it was said contract breaking is an ‘incident of commercial life which players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude’ Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co., 382 P.2d 109 (Okl. 1962) Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106
The Army Corps of Engineers signed a contract with G.L. Christian and Associates to build 2,000 housing units for soldiers at Fort Polk, Louisiana, under the "Capehart Act". Fort Polk was deactivated by the Department of the Army in 1958, and the $32.9 million construction contract was terminated by the Corps of Engineers on February 5, 1958 ...
It remains one of the landmark construction law cases. [1] The owner impliedly warrants the information, plans and specifications which an owner provides to a general contractor. The contractor will not be liable to the owner for loss or damage which results solely from insufficiencies or defects in such information, plans and specifications. [2]
Thomas Witter Ltd v TBP Industries [1996] 2 All ER 573 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. Doubt has been cast in its decision as to availability of rescission by Floods of Queensferry Ltd v Shand Construction Ltd [1] and Government of Zanzibar v British Aerospace (Lancaster House) Ltd. [2]
This doctrine of the common law came under heavy fire. It was ridiculed by Sir George Jessel in Couldery v Bartram. [1] It was said to be mistaken by Lord Blackburn in Foakes v Beer. [2] It was condemned by the Law Revision Committee (1945 Cmd 5449), paras. 20 and 21 . But a remedy has been found. The harshness of the common law has been relieved.
Hyundai were shipbuilders who entered into a contract dated 10 April 1972 with North Ocean Shipping to build an oil tanker named the "Atlantic Baron". [1] The price for constructing the ship was payable in five instalments, and the builders had agreed to a reverse letter of credit, for repayment of installments in the event of default on the construction.
Molkerei was buying automated packaging machinery, to come from and be installed by RTS. They made a letter of intent, providing for the whole contract price, contemplating full contract terms would be based on MF/1 terms, i.e. using the Institute of Engineering and Technology's model form of contract for the design, supply and installation of electrical, electronic and mechanical plant. [1]