Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

GCU - Construction Contracts 2 > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

Week 1 - Obligations - 4 cases

A

1) Wells v Army & Navy Co-operative Society (1902)
2) Glenlion Construction Ltd v The Guinness Trust (1987)
3) Greater Glasgow Health Board v Keppie Henderson Partners (1989)
4) Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd & BICC Construction Ltd (1980)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Week 2 - Time - 6 cases

A

1) Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970)
2) Hadley v Baxendale (1854)
3) Clydebank Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Don Jose Rame Yzqierdo y Castenada (1905)
4) Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915)
5) Parking Eye v Beavis (2015)
6) City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd (2010)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Week 3 - Certification - 4 cases

A

1) Northern Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984)
2) Beaufort Developments (NI) Ltd v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (1998))
3) Crown Estates Commissioners v John Mowlem & Co Ltd (1994)
4) Firholm Builders Ltd v McAuley (1982)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Week 4 - Instructions & Variations - 1 case

A

1) Williams v Fitzmaurice (1858)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Week 5 - Payment - 4 cases

A

1) Charles Gray & Son Ltd v Stern (1953)
2) Ramsay & Son v Brand (1898)
3) Stirling County Council v Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd (1951)
4) S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd (2018)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Week 6 - Subs & Suppliers - 3 cases

A

1) Scott Lithgow v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd (1992)
2) Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council (1985)
3) Blyth & Blyth Ltd v Carillion Construction (2002)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Week 7 - Suspension & Termination - 2 cases

A

1) White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962)

2) Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd v George Whimpey Ltd (2007))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Week 8 - Remedies - 5 cases

A

1) Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power PLC (1994)
2) Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1995)
3) FG Minter Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (1980)
4) Ogilvie Builders Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council (1995)
5) Redpath Dorman Long Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd (1982)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Week 9 - Insurances - 3 cases

A

1) Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (1986)
2) British Telecommunications PLC v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd (1999)
3) Aberdeen Harbour Board v Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd (1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Week 10 - Rights for third parties - no cases

A

None

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Week 11 - Liability in delict - 12 cases

A

1) Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
2) Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1972)
3) Dutton v Bognor Regis (1972)
4) Anns v Merton LBC (1977)
5) Junior Books v The Veitchi Co Ltd (1982)
6) Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of) v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co (1985)
7) Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (1988)
8) D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners (1989)
9) Parkhead Housing Association v Phoenix Preservation Ltd (1990)
10) Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991)
11) Dynamco v Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd (1971)
12) Stevenson v A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd (1996)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Wells v ? (1902)

A

Army ‘&’ Navy Co-operative Society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

? v Army ‘&’ Navy Co-operative Society (1902)

A

Wells

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Wells v Army ‘&’ Navy Co-operative Society (?)

A

1902

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Wells v Army ‘&’ Navy Co-operative Society (1902)

A

Tag line - TIme at large

Key issue - Employer unable to hold contractor to LDs for being late

Particulars;
• Works to be completed within a year.
• Works completed 1 year late.
• Delays not contractors fault.
• Delays mainly due to late possession of site, late issue of architects info, other contractors.
• No mechanisms in contract to extend duration.
• Time at large

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Glenlion Construction Ltd v ?

1987

A

The Guinness Trust

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

? v The Guinness Trust

1987

A

Glenlion Construction Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Glenlion Construction Ltd v The Guinness Trust

?

A

1987

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Glenlion Construction Ltd v The Guinness Trust

(1987) 39 BLR 89

A

Tag line - Contractor’s early finish

Key issue - Contract completion - architect under no obligation to assist contractor in early completion

Particulars;
• Contract called for contractor to complete “on or before” date for completion
• Programmed to finish early
• Contractor unable to finish early due to timing of issue of architects info
• Contractor claimed loss / expense
• Lost
• Architect under no obligation to issue information in time to allow early finish - only in time to allow completion by date of completion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Greater Glasgow Health Board v ? (1989)

A

Keppie Henderson Partners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

? v Keppie Henderson Partners (1989)

A

Greater Glasgow Health Board

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Keppie Henderson Partners (?)

A

1989

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Greater Glasgow Health Board v Keppie Henderson Partners (1989) SLT 387

A

Tag line - Defective heating design

Key issue - Contractor deemed not responsible for design defects

Particulars;
• Defective heating system due to spec’d mats not being of a reasonable quality and design / mats not being of reasonable suitably.
• Selection of mats / design not down to contractor.
• Contractor only responsible for quality of workmanship - “reasonable skill and care”.
• “Fit for purpose” (e.g. that system would work) would not apply as no design responsibility.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Independent Broadcasting Authority v ? (1980)

A

EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

? v EMI Electronics Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd (1980)

A

Independent Broadcasting Authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics

Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd (?)

A

1980

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics

Ltd and BICC Construction Ltd (1980) 14 BLR 1

A

Tag line - Unfit for purpose mast

Key issue - D&B contractor responsible for “fit for purpose”

Particulars;
• Contractor engaged to D&B aerial mast at Emory Moor.
• IBA had advised what they were looking for and use but no other info.
• IBA had another mast at Winter Hill violently oscillate and wrote to BICC to confirm this would not happen.
• BICC confirmed would be designed to avoid this (and implied it would be fit for purpose)
• Some time after completion mast fell down due to asymmetrical ice loading and vortex shedding
• BICC responsibility to re-build etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v ? (1970)

A

McKinney Foundations Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

? v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970)

A

Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (?)

A

1970

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970)

A

Tag line - Defective pile & time at large

Key issue - No provision in contract for EOT due to employer delay

Particulars;
• Peak bespoke contract (weighted very much in their favour) used - not standard contract.
• McKinney D&B contractor for piling.
• McKinney complete and off site.
• Major defect found with 1 pile and a number of minor defects with other piles.
• Peak took 58 weeks to decide on solution to rectify.
• Actual remedial works took 6 weeks.
• Peak tried to apply damages.
• Found no mechanism in contract to grant EOT in contract due to delay caused by employer so LDs could not be applied - contractor given reasonable time to complete - time at large.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Hadley v ? (1854)

A

Baxendale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

? v Baxendale (1854)

A

Hadley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Hadley v Baxendale (?)

A

1854

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Hadley v Baxendale (1854)

A

Tag line - Crankshaft and remoteness of damages

Key issue - Remoteness of damages

Particulars;
• Hadley owned mill powered by steam engine which broke down due to broken crank shaft.
• Baxendale hired to take old crankshaft to manufacturer long distance away so that replacement could be made and deliver said replacement to Hadley.
• Agreed to deliver by 2nd day of receiving replacement.
• Took 7 days.
• Hadley’s mill at stand still the entire time - unbeknown to Baxendale.
• Hadley tried to sue for loss of earning etc.
• Baxendale argued he was unaware of this and would have delivered sooner had he known.
• Decision that Baxendale should be liable for the ordinary / generic damages i.e. those which would be normal for standard breach of contract.
• Decided as Baxendale was unaware that mill would be at a standstill not liable of special, consequential or collateral losses - should have been communicated at time of contracting.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd v ? (1905)

A

Don Jose Rame Yzquierdo y Castaneda

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

? v Don Jose Rame Yzquierdo y Castaneda (1905)

A

Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Don Jose Rame Yzquierdo y Castaneda (?)

A

1905

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Don Jose Rame Yzquierdo y Castaneda (1905)

A

Tag line - The Castaneda & LDs

Key issue - Liquidated Damages

Particulars;
• Contract to build and deliver war ships with LDs of £500 per vessel per week.
• Contract complete, contract sum paid in full, boats delivered late.
• Spanish government submit claim for LDs
• Clyde make 3 arguments; (1) LDs could not be applied as warships do not generate profit therefore no loss (2) Had they been delivered on time they would have likely been sunk like the rest of the Spanish Navy during the Spanish-American War (3) Contract sum paid in full meant right to claim LDs had been waived.
• Decided (1) LDs did apply and were not a penalty (2) Irrelevant (3) Full payment of contract sum is not a waiver.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v ? (1915)

A

New Garage & Motor Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

? v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915)

A

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (?)

A

1915

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage & Motor Co Ltd (1915)

A

Tag line - Sales agreement and LDs

Key issue - Liquidated damages - penalty or LDs?

Particulars;
• Dunlop manufactured and supplied various items to New Garage.
• Agreed in contract that New Garage would pay £5 in LDs for every item sold or offered in breach of their agreement.
• New Garage breached various times and Dunlop claimed LDs.
• New Garage argued these were penalties and not LDs.
• Found that Dunlop was correct.
• LDs were clarified as follows; LD should be genuine and fair pre-estimate of damage decided upon at the time of making the contract, not at time of breach.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Parking Eye v ? (2015)

A

Beavis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

? v Beavis (2015)

A

Parking Eye

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Parking Eye v Beavis (?)

A

2015

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Parking Eye v Beavis (2015)

A

Tag line - Parking fine: penalty or damage

Key issue - Liquidated Damages - Penalty or LD?

Particulars;
• Parking eye managed car park.
• Beavis overstayed by 1 hour despite warning signage - received £85 charge.
• Beavis argued unenforceable as charge was a penalty under common law and / or unenforceable under the “Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999”.
• Parking Eye won.
• Found that Parking Eye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. It was an economic entity which required to be protected (through charge). £85 charge neither extravagant nor unconscionable therefore was not a penalty.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

City Inn Ltd v ? (2010)

A

Shepherd Construction Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

? v Shepherd Construction Ltd (2010)

A

City Inn Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd (?)

A

2010

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

City Inn Ltd v Shepherd Construction Ltd (2010)

A

Tag line - Shared delays

Key issue - Concurrent delays / apportionment of delays

Particulars
• Contract to build new hotel in Bristol.
• Architect issued late instructions but failed to issue EOT on grounds that contractor already late.
• Found that delay could be shared.
• Where there are competing causes but a dominant cause can be established then that cause determines if an EOT can be granted.
• Where a dominant cause cannot be established then delay can be apportioned between them.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Northern Regional Health Authority v ? (1984)

A

Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

? v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984)

A

Northern Regional Health Authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Northern Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (?)

A

1984

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Northern Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984)

A

Tag line - Power with arbitrator or court

Key Issue - Courts Powers

Particulars;
• Issues arose around lack of instructions for certain sections of the works and the values being certified.
• Contract allowed for issues to be taken to arbitrator only.
• Only able to go to arbitration after PC.
• Decided that contractor unable to take matters to court as the power had been conferred to the arbitrator and could not be held by both the arbitrator and the courts.
• This was the basis for the next 14 years until Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd) v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (1998)
• Duncan Wallace argued re this for the entire 14 year process

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd) v ? (1998)

A

Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

? v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (1998)

A

Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd) v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (?)

A

1998

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Beaufort Developments (NI Ltd) v Gilbert Ash (NI) Ltd (1998)

A

Tag line - Power with arbitrator and court

Key Issues - Courts Powers

Particulars;
• Overturned Norther Regional Health Authority v Derek Crouch Construction Co Ltd (1984)
• Practical completion on project was delayed.
• Contractor served notice of arbitration.
• Employer claimed damages against contractor and architect.
• Court could hold power same power as arbiter.
• Meant certificates could be challenged right away and did not have to wait for arbitration (starting after PC).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Crown Estates Commissioners v ? (1994)

A

John Mowlem & Co Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

? v John Mowlem & Co Ltd (1994)

A

Crown Estates Commissioners

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Crown Estates Commissioners v John Mowlem & Co Ltd (?)

A

1994

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Crown Estates Commissioners v John Mowlem & Co Ltd (1994)

A

Tag line - English broad view on conclusivity

Key Issues - Final Certificates (Conclusivity)

Particulars;
• Mowlem employed to construct development on site of former Chelsea Palace Barracks.
• Final cert isssued.
• 4 months later further defects issued to Mowlem who argued too late, not their problem as final cert issued.
• Decided final cert was conclusive evidence that all works fully complete
• Case in English law, takes broad view on Conclusivity of final cert

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Firholm Builders Ltd v ? (1982)

A

McAuley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

? v McAuley (1982)

A

Firholm Builders Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Firholm Builders Ltd v McAuley (?)

A

1982

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Firholm Builders Ltd v McAuley (1982)

A

Tag line - Scottish narrow view on conclusivity

Key Issues - Final Certificate (Conclusivity) & Set-Off

Particulars;
• Main contractor claimed balance of monies due under contract after issue of final certificate
• Employer tried to off-set cost of defective works.
• Found that unlike in Crown Estates v John Mowlem, final cert does not offer Conclusivity all works are defect free.
• Final cert is evidence that architect was reasonably satisfied works were complete however employer could still argue architect ought not to have been satisfied.
• Case in Scots law which demonstrates more narrow view on Conclusivity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

Williams v ? (1858)

A

Fitzmaurice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

? v Fitzmaurice (1858)

A

Williams

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

Williams v Fitzmaurice (?)

A

1858

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Williams v Fitzmaurice (1858)

A

Tag line - House with no floor boards

Key Issues - True lump sum contract

Particulars;
• Williams engaged to build a house for Fitzmaurice
• Carried out under true lump sum contract
• Spec / drawings didn’t detail any floorboards
• Bottom of spec Williams had signed memorandum agreeing that house would “be completed and fit for occupation” by a specified date
• Williams tried to claim extra for floorboards
• Deemed included as house unfit for occupation without floorboards
• Would have been a variation if under a SBC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

Charles Gray & Son Ltd v ? (1953)

A

Stern

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

? v Stern (1953)

A

Charles Gray & Son Ltd

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Charles Gray & Son Ltd v Stern (?)

A

1953

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Charles Gray & Son Ltd v Stern (1953)

A

Tag line - Common law interim payment

Key Issues - Common law no implied right to interim payment

Particulars;
• Charles Gray house builders
• Contracted to sub divide house
• Ad hoc contract - not standard building contract
• No express terms agreed for interim payment
• At end of first month Charles Gray applied for money
• Mr Stern refused
• Charles Gray sued for payment
• Held Charles Gray had no right to interim payment and had failed to carry out material part of contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Ramsay & Son v ? (1898)

A

Brand

77
Q

? v Brand (1898)

A

Ramsay & Son

78
Q

Ramsay & Son v Brand (?)

A

1898

79
Q

Ramsay & Son v Brand (1898)

A

Tag line - Common law payment for defective work

Key Issues - Right under common law for payment for defective work of contract sum minus cost of remedy

Particulars;
• Ramsay contracted to carry out mason work for cottage in Arbroath
• It was detected late on that works were non compliant
• Wrong type of mortar had been used
• Cost to remedy (which included demolition of work done) was substantial
• Held that Ramsay should be paid contract sum minus cost of remedy
• If builder departs from contract loses right to sue for contract sum
• Doesn’t gain right to sue for quantum meruit either as employer didn’t agree to pay value for that which he did not order

80
Q

Stirling County Council v ? (1951)

A

Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd

81
Q

? v Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd (1951)

A

Stirling County Council

82
Q

Stirling County Council v Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd (?)

A

1951

83
Q

Stirling County Council v Official Liquidator of John Frame Ltd (1951)

A

Tag line - Materials off site and foreign law

Key Issues - Ownership of off site materials

Particulars;
• John Frame contracted to carry out plumbing works on housing scheme
• Stored materials in lock fast store which was not on site (with consent from Stirling CC)
• Paid for materials off site
• John Frame went into liquidation
• Liquidator took ownership of materials
• Stirling CC claimed ownership of materials as paid for
• Contract said that once goods had been paid for they became ownership of employer
• Held by Sheriff Substitute Walker that contract based on some “foreign law” (i.e. English)
• Scots law based on Roman law
• Contract for services different from contract for sale

84
Q

S&T (UK) Ltd v ? (2018)

A

Grove Developments Ltd

85
Q

? v Grove Developments Ltd (2018)

A

S&T (UK) Ltd

86
Q

S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd (?)

A

2018

87
Q

S&T (UK) Ltd v Grove Developments Ltd (2018)

A

Tag line - £14m claim and validity of Payless notice

Key Issues - Validity of Payless notice and adjudication of application true value

Particulars;
• S&T contracted for D&B hotel at Heathrow airport
• Delays occurred for reasons in dispute
• Project went 5 months past Completion Date
• S&T submitted app 22 which had an increase of £14m
• Grove issued pay notice valuing this at £1.4m
• Subsequently issued payless to value of £0 based on LDs being applied for 5 month overrun
• Went to adjudication - S&T claimed Payless notice was invalid as did not specify sum due and calculation of same - awarded £14m
• Grove appealed - held that (1) Payless notice was valid (2) Grove could commence adjudication to establish true value of app 22 (3) Grove had complied with contract to allow them to apply LDs
• S&T have appealed and proceedings to come

88
Q

Scott Lithgow v ? (1992)

A

GEC Electrical Projects Ltd

89
Q

? v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd (1992)

A

Scott Lithgow

90
Q

Scott Lithgow v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd (?)

A

1992

91
Q

Scott Lithgow v GEC Electrical Projects Ltd (1992)

A

Tag line - Naval Jus Quaesitum Tertio

Key Issues - Jus Quaesitum Tertio, Scottish exception to privity of contract

Particulars;
• Jus Quaesitum Tertio - allows 2 parties to make a contract and confer a right on a third party (the tertius)
• MOD engaged Scott Lithgow to construct naval vessel
• Scott Lithgow subbed domestic services to GEC
• Defects found in electrical services
• Dispute arose between Scott Lithgow and GEC
• In sub contract MOD listed as ultimate beneficiary - (listed as the tertius)
• MOD sued for damages due to the defects
• Judge Held MOD entitled to sue GEC as they were the tertius and being listed in the contract was sufficient to claim the rights of the tertius

92
Q

Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd v ? (1985)

A

Strathclyde Regional Council

93
Q

? v Strathclyde Regional Council (1985)

A

Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd

94
Q

Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council (?)

A

1985

95
Q

Archivent Sales and Developments Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council (1985)

A

Tag line - Retention of title clause for ducting

Key Issues - Ownership of materials on site

Particulars;
• Archivent supplied vent ducting to contractor on site owned by SRC
• Had a retention of title clause within their Ts&Cs
• Contractor applied for and received monies for goods from SRC
• Contractor went into liquidation prior to paying Archivent
• Archivent exercised retention of title clause - demanded return of goods or payment from SRC for same
• Judge held that section 25 (1) of Sale of Goods Act 1979 protected SRC
• SRC did not know of existence of retention of title clause - main contractor did not tell them, neither did Archivent
• Archivent lost ownership

96
Q

Blyth & Blyth Ltd v ? (2002)

A

Carillion Construction Ltd

97
Q

? v Carillion Construction Ltd (2002)

A

Blyth & Blyth Ltd

98
Q

Blyth & Blyth Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (?)

A

2002

99
Q

Blyth & Blyth Ltd v Carillion Construction Ltd (2002)

A

Tag line - Error in novated design

Key Issues - Novation

Particulars;
• D&B contract
• B&B carried out initial design for employer
• B&B novated to work for Carillion
• Then alleged B&B had made error in initial calculations
• Carillion lost money due to this error
• B&B sued Carillion for unpaid professional fees
• Carillion counter claimed for additional costs associated with alleged error
• Held that because alleged error was made when B&B were working for employer and that employer suffered no loss, it was Carillion who suffered the loss, B&B were not liable to Carillion at time

100
Q

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v ? (1962)

A

McGregor

101
Q

? v McGregor (1962)

A

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd

102
Q

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (?)

A

1962

103
Q

White & Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962)

A

Tag line - Bin advertising labels

Key Issues - Non acceptance of repudiation

Particulars;
• Dubious law
• WCC firm of advertising printers
• Entered into contract for 3 year advertising campaign through representative of McGregor
• On same day McGregor found out and contacted WCC to advise there had been an error and they did not wish to enter in contract (there for repudiating)
• WCC decided to ignore repudiation and carry out duties of contract
• Carry out duties and invoiced for works
• Ts&Cs of contract stated that should a payment become overdue then sum of all 3 years services due
• WCC sued for all 3 years
• WCC won

104
Q

Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd v ? (2007)

A

George Wimpey Ltd

105
Q

? v George Wimpey Ltd (2007)

A

Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd

106
Q

Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd v George Wimpey Ltd (?)

A

2007

107
Q

Melville Dundas (in receivership) Ltd v George Wimpey Ltd (2007)

A

Tag line - Insolvency & contract taking precedence over HGCR Act

Key Issues - No further payments due following contractors insolvency

Particulars;
• GW contracted to build houses
• MD sub contractor to GW
• GW applied for monies (circa £356k)
• Monies due 14 days after application
• No with holding notice issued
• Further 6 days passed without payment
• MD went into receivership
• GW determined their employment
• Receiver sued for unpaid money
• Went from outer house of court of session, to inner house and then to House of Lords
• MD case was money was due under HGCR Act
• GW case was that under the contract further payment ceases to contractor in event of insolvency, we can’t pay you
• 5 judges split - 2 senior judges agreed with GW, 2 junior judges sided with MD, 5th judge sided with senior judges
• Statute should have taken precedence but didn’t

108
Q

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v ? (1994)

A

Scottish Power PLC

109
Q

? v Scottish Power PLC (1994)

A

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd

110
Q

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power PLC (?)

A

1994

111
Q

Balfour Beatty Construction (Scotland) Ltd v Scottish Power PLC (1994)

A

Tag line - Aqua duct concrete pour and remoteness of damages

Key Issues - Remoteness of damages

Particulars;
• BB constructing aqua duct over Edinburgh city bypass to Grand Union canal
• Spec called for single pour of concrete due to it carrying water
• Nearby concrete batching plant in Ratho being used for pour
• Started pour, batching plant broke down due to loss of mains power
• Had to stop pour, flush out what had been done to allow fresh start on 2nd attempt
• Additional costs associated with flushing out and re-doing works
• BB sued SP for these costs
• SP Ts&Cs don’t guarantee uninterrupted supply of electricity
• SP defence - we didn’t know you needed an uninterrupted supply for pour, had we known, contingencies could have been put in place (e.g. had engineer present, installed 2nd back up supply, hired a stand by generator)
• Damages too remote as per 2nd limb of Hadley v Baxendale

112
Q

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v ? (1995)

A

Forsyth

113
Q

? v Forsyth (1995)

A

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd

114
Q

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth (1995)

A

Tag line - The well known Forsyth and his swimming pool - loss of amenity

Key Issues - Defective works and damages

Particulars;
• Ruxley engaged to build swimming pool spec’d to be 7ft 6in deep for diving.
• On completion pool was only 6ft deep - swimming pool still functional
• Estimated cost of re-building was circa £21k
• Forsyth awarded £2.5k for loss of amenity at first pass
• On appeal Forsyth committed to rebuild and was awarded full cost for rectification
• Ruxley appealed to HoLs
• Ruxley won appeal
• Where expenditure was out of proportion to the benefit to be obtained then the appropriate level damages should not be the cost of remedying but the value of diminuation of the works

114
Q

Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth (?)

A

1995

115
Q

FG Minter Ltd v ? (1980)

A

Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation

116
Q

? v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (1980)

A

FG Minter Ltd

117
Q

FG Minter Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (?)

A

1980

117
Q

? v City of Glasgow District Council (1995)

A

Ogilvie Builders Ltd

118
Q

FG Minter Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation (1980)

A

Tag line - Direct losses and double whammy of loss and expense

Key Issues - Finance charges

Particulars;
• Damages have to be direct loss
• Used to be held that finance charges were not a direct consequence of a contractor suffering loss and expense
• Used to be held to be indirect losses therefore unrecoverable
• Minter put up argument that where a contractor is suffering loss and expense he is getting with a double whammy i.e. loss and expense AND he’s having to finance that loss and expense until he receives his money
• He’s either got money in the bank, but less than he should, and missing out on interest
• Or he’s in overdraft, further in overdraft due to L&E, and this bears it’s costs
• Held that Minter was correct

119
Q

Ogilvie Builders Ltd v ? (1995)

A

City of Glasgow District Council

121
Q

Ogilvie Builders Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council (?)

A

1995

122
Q

Ogilvie Builders Ltd v City of Glasgow District Council (1995)

A

Tag line - Direct nature of losses associated with finance charges

Key Issues - Finance charges

Particulars;
• Ogilvie claimed L&E including finance charges
• CoGDC argued finance charges were indirect loss
• Held that direct loss was loss arising naturally as per the first limb of Hadley v Baxendale
• Acknowledged that delay in payment to contractor may result in them being short of working capital and incurring finance charges

122
Q

Redpath Dorman Long Ltd v ? (1982)

A

Tarmac Construction Ltd

123
Q

? v Tarmac Construction Ltd (1982)

A

Redpath Dorman Long Ltd

123
Q

Redpath Dorman Long Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd (?)

A

1982

124
Q

Redpath Dorman Long Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd (1982)

A

Tag line - Rosyth warehouse cladding rails attempted set off

Key Issues - Set-off

Particulars;
• RDL doing steel work for warehouse at Rosyth dockyard
• Alleged cladding rails installed upside down
• RDL submitted interim application
• Tarmac slashed value based on their belief that defect could cost them a lot of money going forward
• RDL took to court arguing application was payable now, alleged defects had not been agreed or quantified as yet therefore were a future debt that could not be offset
• RDL successful

126
Q

Scottish Special Housing Association v ? (1986)

A

Wimpey Construction UK Ltd

128
Q

? v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (1986)

A

Scottish Special Housing Association

129
Q

Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (?)

A

1986

130
Q

Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd (1986)

A

Tag line - Insurance for negligent fire

Key Issues - Insruance

Particulars;
• Wimpey contracted to carry out works in existing building
• SSHA had not insured building - should have under contract but had not
• Wimpey allegedly negligently set fire to the existing building
• SSHA argued that because Wimpey had negligently set fire to the property they should be for damage
• Wimpey argued contract was clear - if there was a fire then employers insurers were liable; specified peril didn’t say non negligent fire, just fire, therefore covered any fire
• Wimpey successful

131
Q

British Telecommunications PLC v ? (1999)

A

James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd

132
Q

? v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd (1999)

A

British Telecommunications PLC

133
Q

British Telecommunications PLC v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd (1999)

A

Tag line - Domestic sub and negligent fire

Key Issues - Insurance

Particulars;
• BT engaged Melville Dundas to works at Dial House in Glasgow
• JT&S were domestic sub contractor to MD
• Working in roof top plant room
• Allegedly negligently set fire
• BT sued JT&S for damages in delict as they were not in contract with them
• BT argued domestic sub contractor owes duty of care to the building owner
• Joint names insurance policy between BT & MD in place
• JT&S argued the same as SSHA v Wimpey - it was undefined fire
• BT argued not the case - only people who had been protected in SSHA v Wimpey were the main contractor and nominated sub contractor, not domestic subs
• BT lost first two times
• BT won in House of Lords (5-0)
• JCT changed after this to protect domestic sub contractors

134
Q

British Telecommunications PLC v James Thomson & Sons (Engineers) Ltd (?)

A

1999

135
Q

Aberdeen Harbour Board v ? (1990)

A

Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd

136
Q

? v Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd (1990)

A

Aberdeen Harbour Board

137
Q

Aberdeen Harbour Board v Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd (?)

A

1990

138
Q

Aberdeen Harbour Board v Heating Enterprises (Aberdeen) Ltd (1990)

A

Tag line - Negligent fire in tenants home

Key Issues - Insurance - Employer doesn’t have to indemnify contractor from claims from 3rd parties

Particulars;
• HE had contract with tenant in building owned by AHB
• HE allegedly set fire to property
• Tenant wasn’t owner - was the employer however
• Building owner (AHB) sued HE
• AHB won
• Held that employer has no obligation to indemnify the contractor against claims by 3rd parties
• Structures referred to in building contract were only those occupied by the tenant in which they had an incurable interest
• Fire damage to other areas owned by AHB were not insured under building contract

139
Q

Donoghue v ? (1932)

A

Stevenson

140
Q

? v Stevenson (1932)

A

Donoghue

141
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (?)

A

1932

142
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

A

Tag line - Delict: Snail in a bottle

Key Issues - Delict, duty of care

Particulars;
• Case lay the foundation for law of negligence in delict
• Mrs Donoghue bought an iced drink by her friend in Mr Minchella’s cafe in Paisley
• Ginger beer served in dark, opaque bottle
• Drank the half that had been in her glass, poured out other half and allegedly decomposing body of snail fell out of bottle
• Caused Mrs Donoghue to allegedly fall ill
• As friend had bought drink Mrs Donoghue was neither in contract with Mr Minchella or drink manufacturer Mr Stevenson
• Sued Mr Stevenson and case eventually went to HoL
• Lord Atkin espoused the neighbour principle
• Should take reasonable care to avoid harm to your neighbour
• Begged question who is your “neighbour”
• Neighbour = persons who are closely and directly affected by act that they ought to reasonably be in contemplation as being affected by actions or inactions

143
Q

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v ? (1972)

A

Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd

144
Q

? v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1972)

A

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd

145
Q

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (?)

A

1972

146
Q

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd (1972)

A

Tag line - Delict: Loss of power to smelting plant

Key Issues - Pure economic loss

Particulars;
• Martin working on road outside of factory
• Loss of power to factory due to electrical supply being accidentally severed
• Smelt ongoing at the time
• Smelt had to be stopped and poured out so as not to damage crucible in solidifying
• Delay to four following smelts being carried out
• Breached duty of care to neighbour
• Court agreed loss with current smelt however subsequent smelts were pure economic loss which could not be recovered

147
Q

Dutton v ? (1972)

A

Bognor Regis DC

148
Q

? v Bognor Regis DC (1972)

A

Dutton

149
Q

Dutton v Bognor Regis DC (?)

A

1972

150
Q

Dutton v Bognor Regis DC (1972)

A

Tag line - Delict: Defective house foundations on former rubbish tip

Key Issues - Defective buildings

Particulars;
• Mrs Dutton 2nd owner of house therefore never in contract with builder or local authority
• House built on site of former rubbish tip
• Designer took cognisance of low load bearing capacity of ground and designed external foundations to external walls to accommodate this
• Didn’t extend this to internal to internal walls
• Foundations had been inspected and passed by Bognor Regis local authority
• Internal walls and stairs showed signed of cracking due to foundations failing
• Held that Bognor Regis owed duty of care and therefore liable to subsequent owners
• Set a precedent

151
Q

Anns v ? (1977)

A

Merton LBC

152
Q

? v Merton LBC (1977)

A

Anns

153
Q

Anns v Merton LBC (?)

A

1977

154
Q

Anns v Merton LBC (1977)

A

Tag line - Delict: Defective London clay foundations

Key Issues - Defective buildings

Particulars;
• Similar to Dutton V Bognor Regis
• Anns 2nd owner of property
• Foundations built utilising London clay which has problem of expanding and contracting based on moisture content
• Foundations had been inspected and approved by Merton LBC
• Cracks began to appear in structure
• Complex structure principle was the difference between Dutton and Anns
• Argued a building is a complex structure - not a single entity - made up of lots of elements and if one element is defective then it damages the other elements (other property)
• With this in mind it the falls under Donoghue v Stevenson - it is damage to other property therefore not pure economic loss

155
Q

Junior Books v ? (1982)

A

The Veitchi Co Ltd

156
Q

? v The Veitchi Co Ltd (1982)

A

Junior Books

157
Q

Junior Books v The Veitchi Co Ltd (?)

A

1982

158
Q

Junior Books v The Veitchi Co Ltd (1982)

A

Tag line - Delict: VeitchiFlor oddball success in pure economic loss due to proximity

Key Issues - Pure economic loss

Particulars;
• Veitchi were specialist nominated sub contractor to Ogilvie
• Veitchi were well aware of nature of Junior Books business, the purpose for the floor and the part it played in their operations
• Veitchi specialised in production of the materials required
• Veitchi designed and installed seamless floor
• Floor began to crack
• Junior Books took risky step of suing Veitchi in delict for pure economic loss
• Loss was cost to replace and consequential losses while the works took place
• HoL held that Veitchi were liable due to special relationship between Junior Books and Veitchi which was akin to being in contract
• Decided on proximity
• Junior Books relied on Veitchi (being the experts)
• PROXIMITY AND RELIANCE
• Good law only on the facts of the case

159
Q

Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of) v ? (1985)

A

Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co

160
Q

? v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co (1985)

A

Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of)

161
Q

Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of) v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co (?)

A

1985

162
Q

Peabody Donation Fund (Governors of) v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co (1985)

A

Tag line - Delict: Defective drainage different from Dutton & Anns

Key Issues - Duty of Care

Particulars;
• Peabody developer for 245 houses
• Byelaws required drains to be laid to satisfaction of local authority
• Drains specified to have flexible joints so as to suit London clay
• LA inspector informally agreed with architect’s site supervisor that joints could be rigid
• LA inspector approved drainage install
• Drainage system failed
• Had to be reconstructed - 3 year delay
• HoL held no duty on local authority to exercise their statutory power so as to prevent Peabody to contravene the statutory requirements - all down to Lindsay Parkinson
• Different to Dutton & Anns

163
Q

Simaan General Contracting Co v ? (1988)

A

Pilkington Glass Ltd

164
Q

? v Pilkington Glass Ltd (1988)

A

Simaan General Contracting Co

165
Q

Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (?)

A

1988

166
Q

Simaan General Contracting Co v Pilkington Glass Ltd (1988)

A

Tag line - Offensive glass and economic loss

Key Issues - Pure economic loss

Particulars;
• Simaan were main contractor on palace construction in Abu Dhabi to be clad in glass
• Pilkington suppliers of tinted glazing
• Customs in Abu Dhabi meant that certain colour were offensive, one being the colour red
• Glass to be slight shade of green
• Certain times of year the glass looked red
• Simaan sued Pilkington
• Held that this was pure economic loss
• Different from Veitchi as there was no reliance on Pilkington, they were purely the supplier

167
Q

D&F Estates Ltd v ? (1989)

A

Church Commissioners

168
Q

? v Church Commissioners (1989)

A

D&F Estates Ltd

169
Q

D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners (?)

A

1989

170
Q

D&F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners (1989)

A

Tag line - Delict: Defective plaster that didn’t cause harm

Key Issues - Defective building

Particulars;
• Church commissioners owned block of flats
• Sub contracted plaster work which turned out to be defective
• D&F on holiday - returned and found plaster had fallen from ceiling
• No physical harm as no one had been in property
• Wasn’t damage to other property - was damage to thing in itself
• D&F didn’t have contract with builder or plaster sub contractor
• Sued developer on basis they had a duty of care
• Held that they did not have a duty of care to prevent pure economic loss

171
Q

Parkhead Housing Association v ? (1990)

A

Phoenix Preservation Ltd

172
Q

? v Phoenix Preservation Ltd (1990)

A

Parkhead Housing Association

173
Q

Parkhead Housing Association v Phoenix Preservation Ltd (?)

A

1990

174
Q

Parkhead Housing Association v Phoenix Preservation Ltd (1990)

A

Tag line - Delict:

Key Issues - Duty of care

Particulars;
• Phoenix installed defective DPC
• Caused damp and dry rot to timber joists
• Had to be taken out and re-done
• PHA sued Phoenix
• Proof before answer
• Held that that there was proximity and reliance (as with Junior Books) and PHA won
• Had obligation of care
175
Q

Murphy v ? (1991)

A

Brentwood DC

176
Q

? v Brentwood DC (1991)

A

Murphy

176
Q

Murphy v Brentwood DC (?)

A

1991

178
Q

Murphy v Brentwood DC (1991)

A

Tag line - Delict: Defective foundations and over turning of Anns

Key Issues - Defective buildings

Particulars;
• Same as Anns - defective foundations approved by local authority
• Owner unable to afford cost of repair
• Sold house for £35k less than value if foundations were sound
• Murphy sued local authority
• Went to HoLs before 7 judges
• Over turned principles of Anns (7-0)
• Held that a building is a single indivisible unit and rubbished complex structure argument
• Held that LA or builder owed no duty of care for pure economic loss of damage to thing itself
• This is inline with current law

179
Q

Dynamco v ? (1971)

A

Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd

180
Q

? v Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd (1971)

A

Dynamco

181
Q

Dynamco v Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd (?)

A

1971

183
Q

Dynamco v Holland Hannen & Cubitts Ltd (1971)

A

Tag line - Delict: Loss of power to factory and only pure economic loss
(“Holland, Hannen & some other fucker”)

Key Issues - Pure Economic Loss

Particulars;
• Similar to Spartan Steel
• HH&C accidentally severed elec cable
• Factory shut down due to loss of power
• No ongoing processes at the time so no direct loss, only consequential loss
• Pure economic loss therefore unrecoverable

183
Q

Stevenson v ? (1996)

A

A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd

185
Q

? v A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd (1996)

A

Stevenson

186
Q

Stevenson v A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd (?)

A

1996

187
Q

Stevenson v A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd (1996)

A

Tag line - Delict: Successful pure economic loss garage fire

Key Issues - Pure economic loss

Particulars;
• A&J building house with integral garage
• Building regs called for fire stopping between garage and house
• Stevenson was 2nd owner of house
• Fire started in garage and spread to house
• Sued for pure economic loss (damage to thing itself)
• Proof before answer
• Completion certificate had been issued by local building authority giving false representation that house built to regs
• Owners relied on the completion cert which amounted to special relationship

188
Q

Delict linked cases (4 in total)

(1) Dutton v Bognor Regis

A

(2) Anns v Merton - confirmed Dutton
(3) Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson - started process of departure from Dutton & Anns
(4) Murphy v Brentwood - completely overturned Anns

189
Q

Delict linked cases (2 in total)

(1) Spartan Steel v Martin

A

(2) Dynamco v Holland Hannen & Cubitts

GCU - Construction Contracts 2 (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions