Construction analysis: The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) found that an employer’s decision to postpone works was a valid exercise of its right to instruct variations, and not a breach of contract. Even if the postponement of work had been a breach of contract, the terms of the contract would have prevented the contractor from recovering damages for loss of profits and mobilisation and demobilisation costs.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô or register for a free trial
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE
To read the full news article, register for a free Lexis+ trial
**Trials are provided to all ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ³ÉÈËÓ°Òô services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
* denotes a required field
Time of the essence—construction contractsWhat does time of the essence mean?Where time is 'of the essence' it means that the stated time for completion of an obligation in a contract is a condition of the contract. Failing to comply can therefore allow the innocent party to terminate the contract
How can a party recover for damage caused to its property by construction works undertaken on a neighbouring property by a subcontractor, and should the claim be brought against the neighbour, the main contractor or the subcontractor?Liability in tort may arise in a number of different ways in
Standard of care in construction contractsThis Practice Note considers the obligation for contractors and consultants providing services under construction contracts to exercise reasonable skill and care. It looks at the implied term under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
A sub-contractor carrying out piling works damaged underground utilities at the site. The main contractor thought it had located the utilities before starting the works, but had not. The employer commenced proceedings against the contractor, but has since learned of the sub-contractor’s involvement.
0330 161 1234