Legal views 鈥� Page 89
-
CommentBlessed are the peacemakers: Contentious vs non-contentious law
Adjudication has become just like litigation-lite, thanks largely to disputes lawyers gunning for a fight. A less contentious approach might return us to its original aims
-
CommentGet lost, creep: Adjudication
A dispute is never just about the thing that it鈥檚 about. All kinds of interlopers try to get in on the action, and it can make adjudication impossible. As the following case shows 鈥�
-
CommentThe home guard: Defective Premises Act
The Defective Premises Act protects the owners and occupiers of dwellings against shoddy workmanship. A recent case will help ensure that those at fault do not escape liability
-
CommentPredictions for 2010: Anyone for cold turkey?
The season of goodwill to all men is over, folks, so get ready for a year of wrangles, nit-picking, bust-ups over defects and early claims 鈥� like last year, only worse
-
CommentJoint expert witnesses: Clandestine communications
There are some grey areas to being a joint expert witness, but one thing is clear: talking to one party without the other鈥檚 knowledge is not on
-
CommentACE agreements: Altogether now
The recent streamlining of the two design agreements for consultants into one brings simplicity and flexibility as well as a new take on liability
-
CommentPayment rules: Financial mechanics
The new Construction Act may be but a distant prospect, but that doesn鈥檛 mean we can鈥檛 make a few educated guesses as to how its payment rules will work
-
CommentDispute over loft extension: Just how annoyed am I?
When the Court of Appeal pondered the case of a spoilt view, the judges had to imagine themselves as ordinary, sensible members of the public and ask one simple question...
-
CommentAdjucation enforcement: When to use the f-word
It鈥檚 easy to bandy about the word 鈥榝raud鈥� in the hope of defeating enforcement in civil proceedings, but you鈥檇 better make sure you have sufficient evidence to back it up
-
CommentMinimum damage: Liquidated damages
Liquidated damages are often fought over, but rarely understood. Here鈥檚 a guide to the pitfalls to avoid when trying to claim them 鈥�
-
CommentIn banks we trust: Project bank accounts
One reason disputes turn nasty is that the payee suspects that the payer is coming up with spurious excuses not to pay. Luckily, there鈥檚 something we can do about this
-
Comment
Existential matters: Novation
It is not always easy to tell whether a novation has taken place. Here鈥檚 a case that ended up in court because one side swore blind that the contract had been novated
-
Comment
Legal costs: And you say we won?
As Costain vs Haswell shows, judges are using exact measures to work out who pays how much of the legal costs. The results should give a lot of litigants pause for thought
-
CommentContracts: Are you a cavalier or a roundhead?
You can have all the collaboration and co-operation you like in this industry of ours, but fundamentally the Roundheads are right: it鈥檚 all about the contract 鈥�
-
Comment
Law of limitation: And your time starts 鈥� now!
New legislation is on the way (at last) to reform the law of limitation of actions. But should it be a single limitation period and if so for how long: three, six or 10 years?
-
CommentDubai disputes: Arbitrary judgment
Now that the only thing booming in Dubai is disputes, queues are forming outside arbitrators鈥� doors. But arbitration in the UAE has to be speeded up. Here鈥檚 how 鈥�
-
CommentAdjudication awards: Logical deductions
If a party loses an adjudication and is ordered to pay up, can it set this sum off against anything it thinks it is owed from a subsequent adjudication award?
-
Comment
OFT special: The cost of a phone call
If you don鈥檛 want the job, just ask for too much money and you won鈥檛 get it. Nobody can touch you. Phone a friend for a cover price, though, and you鈥檙e liable for millions
-
CommentJCT homeowner contract: Get the picture?
The JCT鈥檚 contract for home extenders is a very useful document, not least because it turns a lot of those complicated words into drawings we can all understand
-
CommentGaps in the framework
If you鈥檝e got a framework, a lot of contractual stuff is written into it. But there are still vital clauses that have to be agreed on the jobs themselves 鈥� so what happens if they aren鈥檛?