76868
Description
Mind Map by petersolomon3, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by petersolomon3
over 11 years ago
|
|
Time, Completion and Delay Damages
- Site access
- Failure to give access is a repudiatory breach
- Failure to give access is a repudiatory breach
- The obligation to complete
- Implied term
- Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
- Charnock v Liberpool Corpn [1968]
- Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
- Completion ceases to apply if:
- breach of contract or act of prevention
by the employer
- no applicable provision for extension of time
- Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
- Damages restricted to general only
- Damages restricted to general only
- Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
- breach of contract or act of prevention
by the employer
- EOT clauses protect the contractor against liability for delay
- If no express provision for EOT - Time is said to be "at large"
- Complete within a reasonable time
- No certain LD date
- No certain LD date
- Complete within a reasonable time
- If no express provision for EOT - Time is said to be "at large"
- Time not generally of the essence
- Employer can serve notice to make time of the
essence, if sufficient time has elapsed
- Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd
- Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd
- Employer can serve notice to make time of the
essence, if sufficient time has elapsed
- Implied term
- Obligation to progress the works
- In the absence of express
provision, business efficacy
may require dilligent and
reasonable progress
- GLC v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering
- Express provision
- “expressly and diligently” or with “due expedition and without delay”
- “expressly and diligently” or with “due expedition and without delay”
- GLC v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering
- In the absence of express
provision, business efficacy
may require dilligent and
reasonable progress
- Extension of time
- Contractor liable for delay unless
- EOT awarded
- Time is at large
- To avoid this - contracts include provisions for Employer delay
- Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
- Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd
- To avoid this - contracts include provisions for Employer delay
- EOT awarded
- Note condition precedent of contracts
- Arbitrators can open up and revise up or down, EOT awards
- Contracts contain rules relating to EOT
- John Barker Construction
Limited v London Portman
Hotel Limited
- John Barker Construction
Limited v London Portman
Hotel Limited
- Contractor liable for delay unless
- Liquidated Damages
- Contra preferentum rule applies
- LD's may not be granted if
they are penal, failure to follow
condition precedent, acts of
prevention by the employer
- Unliquidated damages
- Bovis Construction v Whatlings Construction Ltd
- Failure to mitigate
- Failure to mitigate
- Bovis Construction v Whatlings Construction Ltd
- Effect of £NIL insertion
- Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Limited
- Temloc Ltd v Errill Properties Limited
- Limitations
- Unenforceable penalty
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and
Motor Company Ltd “extravagant and unconscionable
- Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and
Motor Company Ltd “extravagant and unconscionable
- Time at large
- Condition precedent
- Avoncroft Construction Limited v
Sharba Homes
- Avoncroft Construction Limited v
Sharba Homes
- Waiver or estoppel
- Unenforceable penalty
- Contra preferentum rule applies
- Concurrent Delay
- Three credible theories exist
- Dominant cause
- Malmaison case
- City Inn
- Dominant cause
- Three credible theories exist
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.